Tag Archives: Romans 9:16

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 9

Posted on by

I fell for the September 2015 prophecies on YouTube that Jesus would return or the great tribulation would begin.  So I interrupted my regular study cycle and focused exclusively on my Romans study for a time.  Be that as it may I never thought I would return to continue this study.  But as I read, especially the New York Times article, about the capital of the Islamic State I was reminded of my own thoughts about the thousand years.

About forty years ago I expected the millennial reign of Jesus Christ to look a lot like Raqa, Syria looks today—all over the planet.  I thought justice was punishment.  I thought Jesus would return to earth as a righteous, omniscient Judge who regarded anger and lust as murder and adultery, both capital offenses.  I had heard of Jimmy Carter’s Playboy confession:

“I try not to commit a deliberate sin. I recognize that I’m going to do it anyhow, because I’m human and I’m tempted. And Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, ‘I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.’

“I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do–and I have done it–and God forgives me for it.”

And I heard the scandalized reactions of my people to his confession.  It is a major reason I pursued the woman who became my first wife.  I’m better when I can focus my sexual energies on one woman.

President Carter had much more confidence in Jesus’ forgiveness than I did (Hebrews 10:26, 27 NASB):

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.

I reasoned that mass executions would be a daily ritual in the millennium, at least until all of the people like me were exterminated (or raptured?).  Confronted by that memory I looked up “reign of Christ” online and found an article by John F. Walvoord.

John in his vision in Revelation does not occupy himself with the details of the millennial kingdom but only with the fact and duration of it. The character of Christ’s reign on earth is fully described in many Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:4-9; Psalm 72, and many others.

Here is the message about Judah and Jerusalem that was revealed to Isaiah son of Amoz.  In the future the mountain of the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) temple will endure as the most important of mountains, and will be the most prominent of hills.[1]  The words translated future are ʼachărı̂yth (באחרית) yôm (הימים) in Hebrew or ἐσχάταις (a form of ἔσχατος) ἡμέραις (a form of ἡμέρα) in the Septuagint in Greek.  At present Mount Zion is 2,510 feet high and Mount Everest is 29, 029 feet tall.

Perhaps Zion’s prominence is more spiritual than literal: All the nations will stream to [the mountain of the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) temple], many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the Lord’s (yehôvih, יהוה) mountain, to the temple of the God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהי) of Jacob, so he can teach us his requirements, and we can follow his standards.”  For Zion will be the center for moral instruction; the Lord (yehôvih, יהוה) will issue edicts from Jerusalem.[2]  Or perhaps the ʼachărı̂yth yôm or ἐσχάταις  ἡμέραις comes to pass after another prophesied event (Revelation 16:17-20 NET):

Finally the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air and a loud voice came out of the temple from the throne, saying: “It is done!”  Then there were flashes of lightning, roaring, and crashes of thunder, and there was a tremendous earthquake – an earthquake unequaled since humanity has been on the earth, so tremendous was that earthquake.  The great city was split into three parts and the cities of the nations collapsed…Every island fled away and no mountains could be found.

He [yehôvih] will judge disputes between nations, Isaiah’s prophecy continued, he will settle cases for many peoples.  They will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.  Nations will not take up the sword against other nations, and they will no longer train for war.  O descendants of Jacob, come, let us walk in the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) guiding light.[3]

A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock, Isaiah prophesied, a bud will sprout from his roots.  The Lord’s spirit (rûach yehôvâh, רוח יהוה) will rest on him – a spirit (rûach, רוח) that gives extraordinary wisdom, a spirit (rûach, רוח) that provides the ability to execute plans, a spirit (rûach, רוח) that produces absolute loyalty to the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה).  He will take delight in obeying the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה).  He will not judge by mere appearances, or make decisions on the basis of hearsay.  He will treat the poor fairly, and make right decisions for the downtrodden of the earth.[4]

I’m being a bit subversive quoting the first three verses of this chapter.  My people believe they apply to Jesus’ first appearance on earth.  Only verses 4-9 apply to the thousand years.  My only point is that it is difficult to make that distinction in this passage alone, except perhaps for the next part of verse 4:  He will strike the earth with the rod (shêbeṭ, בשבט) of his mouth, and order the wicked to be executed.[5]  And that brings me back to Raqa, Syria:

It’s called Heaven Square, but after the Islamic State group started using the roundabout in Raqa for gruesome public executions it earned a new name: Hell Square.
In the year since the jihadist group announced its “caliphate” last June, its de facto Syrian capital of Raqa has been transformed into a macabre metropolis.
Human heads are displayed on spikes at the central roundabout and crucified bodies hang for days to terrorise local residents, said Abu Ibrahim Raqqawi, a Raqa resident and anti-IS activist.

“From the first moment of its control over Raqa, IS adopted a policy of horror and terror, resorting to executions, beheadings, cutting off hands and legs, and crucifixion,” said Raqqawi, who uses a pseudonym…

It touts the implementation of its version of Islam, with life coming to a halt five times every day for prayers and all residents required to declare their assets and pay “zakat”, Islamic alms.
It also revels in meting out punishments for crimes ranging from collaboration with Syria’s regime and theft to “witchcraft” and homosexuality.
The group regularly carries out beheadings, but also stones victims to death or throws them from building tops.

I’m not particularly concerned with cosmetics here.  Whether Jesus orders the wicked to be executed in “gruesome public executions,” or secretly in concentration camps or antiseptic hospitals, is immaterial.  What concerns me is whether this is the Justice [that] will be like a belt around his waist, the integrity [that] will be like a belt around his hips.[6]  Consider by contrast the impact of his presence on animals (Isaiah 11:6-9a NET):

A wolf will reside with a lamb, and a leopard will lie down with a young goat; an ox and a young lion will graze together, as a small child leads them along.  A cow and a bear will graze together, their young will lie down together.  A lion, like an ox, will eat straw.  A baby will play over the hole of a snake; over the nest of a serpent an infant will put his hand.  They will no longer injure or destroy on my entire royal mountain.

Why?  For there will be universal submission to the Lord’s (yehôvih, יהוה) sovereignty, just as the waters completely cover the sea.[7]  To order the wicked to be executed sounds strangely incongruous to me.  But I’m biased.  I’m not an ancient widow descended from Israel, plagued by an adversary and an unrighteous judge.  I’m an old white American male, one of the most privileged people on the planet.

So, “my persistent prayer for justice is for the mercy on which everything depends, for it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on [You] who shows mercy (ἐλεῶντος, a form of ἐλεέω),[8] and, [You have] consigned all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, a form of ἀπείθεια) so that [You] may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, another form of ἐλεέω) to them all.”[9]

I don’t believe I am, or have been, free to disregard his mercy.  I can see how those who believe they are free to disregard it, but have not, could distinguish themselves from those who do not yet rely on his mercy, and approve of their deaths.  I did, too, when I believed in that freedom.  Now when I realize that the words translated order are rûach śâphâh (וברוח שׁפתיו; “wind” or “breath of the lip,” or “spirit of the language” or “speech”) I wonder if Jesus is returning to order the wicked to be executed or to preach the Gospel to them—very effectively.  Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?[10]

The Septuagint reads: καὶ πατάξει γῆν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν πνεύματι διὰ χειλέων ἀνελεῖ ἀσεβῆ; “and he shall strike the earth with the word of his mouth, and with the breath through his lips he shall do away with the impious.”[11]  To realize that the rabbis translated the wicked (râshâʽ, רשע) ἀσεβῆ (a form of ἀσεβής) led me inexorably to, But to the one who does not work, but believes (πιστεύοντι, a form of πιστεύω) in the one who declares the ungodly (ἀσεβῆ) righteous, his faith (πίστις) is credited as righteousness.[12]

I believe in the one who declares the ungodly (ἀσεβῆ) righteous; again, my bias.  I don’t know when to believe He ceases to be the one who declares the ungodly (ἀσεβῆ) righteous.  I don’t know how to stop believing He is the one who declares the ungodly (ἀσεβῆ) righteous, as long as He fills me with the faithfulness (πίστις) of the fruit of his Spirit.  If we live by the Spirit (πνεύματι, a form of πνεῦμα), let us also behave in accordance (στοιχῶμεν, a form of στοιχέω) with the Spirit (πνεύματι, a form of πνεῦμα).[13]

Given my bias I’ll look into the meaning of râshâʽ next, just who the wicked are.

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 10

Back to Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 11

Back to Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 12

Back to Romans, Part 89

[1] Isaiah 2:1, 2a (NET)

[2] Isaiah 2:2b, 3 (NET)

[3] Isaiah 2:4, 5 (NET)

[4] Isaiah 11:1-4a (NET)

[5] Isaiah 11:4b (NET)

[6] Isaiah 11:5 (NET)

[7] Isaiah 11:9b (NET)

[8] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[9] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[10] Romans 6:3 (NET)

[11] http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/33-esaias-nets.pdf

[12] Romans 4:5 (NET)

[13] Galatians 5:25 (NET)

Romans, Part 61

Posted on by

I’m continuing to look at Rejoice in hope, endure in suffering, persist in prayer,[1] as a description of love rather than as rules to obey.  I’m still focusing on the injustice (ἀδικίᾳ, a form of ἀδικία) love is not glad (or, does not rejoice)[2] about.  Two different things are revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται, a form of ἀποκαλύπτω) in the first chapter of Romans.

Two Revelations
For the righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) of God is revealed in the gospel…

Romans 1:17a (NET)

 For the wrath (ὀργὴ, a form of ὀργή) of God is revealed from heaven…

Romans 1:18a (NET)
…from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous (δίκαιος) by faith will live.”

Romans 1:17b (NET)

 …against all ungodliness and unrighteousness (ἀδικίαν, a form of ἀδικία) of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness (ἀδικίᾳ, a form of ἀδικία)…

Romans 1:18b (NET)

But I didn’t always think of these as two different things.  As I became an atheist, though I doubt that I actually thought through these particular verses, I believed that God’s righteousness was God’s wrath, at least it was the nexus where his righteousness impacted human beings.

I returned from atheism to a semblance of faith believing that the wrath (e.g., God’s righteousness) I had not experienced had been deferred to a later time, the end, the Revelation (Ἀποκάλυψις, a form of ἀποκάλυψις).  With this idea in mind I thought the wrath of God…revealed from heaven was some unspecified vengeance against every kind of unrighteousness (ἀδικίᾳ), wickedness, covetousness, malice.  They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility.  They are gossips [Table], slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless [Table].[3]

No matter what the Scripture said I wouldn’t or couldn’t hear that God’s wrath revealed from heaven was that God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.[4]  It was beyond my powers of comprehension that He did this so that they are filled with every kind of unrighteousness (ἀδικίᾳ), wickedness, covetousness, malice.  They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility.  They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless.

As long as I refused to believe that it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy,[5] I couldn’t fathom the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God;[6] namely, that God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[7]  I couldn’t reason that if in his wrath He hands people over to every kind of ἀδικίᾳ, in his non-wrathful state he keeps us from that same ἀδικίᾳ.  And I didn’t perceive that the true nexus of the righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel is his love in us,[8] the love that is the fulfillment of the law,[9] the fruit of his Spirit.[10]

Half a millennium or so before Paul penned his letter to the Romans ἀδικίᾳ was a Greek goddess.  “There is also a chest made of cedar, Pausanias wrote, “with figures on it, some of ivory, some of gold, others carved out of the cedar-wood itself.  It was in this chest that Cypselus, the tyrant of Corinth, was hidden by his mother when the Bacchidae were anxious to discover him after his birth.  In gratitude for the saving of Cypselus, his descendants, Cypselids as they are called, dedicated the chest at Olympia.”[11]  Carved on the chest are the figures of a “beautiful woman…punishing an ugly one, choking her with one hand and with the other striking her with a staff.  It is Justice [δίκη] who thus treats Injustice [ἀδικίᾳ].”[12]

I’ll explore some sayings about δίκη (Dike) as a revelation of the religious mind, making no attempt to distinguish the creative reasoning of human beings from lying spirits.[13]  “Next he [Zeus] led away bright Themis (Divine Law),” Hesiod wrote, “who bare the Horai (Horae, Seasons), and Eunomia (Good Order), Dike (Justice), and blooming Eirene (Peace), who mind the works of mortal men.”[14]  “[S]he sits beside her father, Zeus the son of Kronos (Cronus), and tells him of men’s wicked heart, until the people pay for the mad folly of their princes who, evilly minded, pervert judgement and give sentence crookedly.”[15]

The latter saying sounds more like Satan the accuser than justice (Revelation 12:7-10 NET):

Then war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.  But the dragon was not strong enough to prevail, so there was no longer any place left in heaven for him and his angels.  So that huge dragon – the ancient serpent, the one called the devil and Satan (Σατανᾶς), who deceives the whole world – was thrown down to the earth,[16] and his angels along with him.  Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, “The salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the ruling authority of his Christ, have now come, because the accuser (κατήγωρ, a form of κατηγορέω) of our brothers and sisters, the one who accuses (κατηγορῶν, another form of κατηγορέω) them day and night before our God, has been thrown down.”

Perhaps δίκη gives a glimpse into how Satan perceives himself.  It certainly gives me a different impression of Plato’s eulogy:  “With [Zeus],” Plato wrote in Laws, “followeth Dike (Justice), as avenger of them that fall short of the divine law; and she, again, is followed by every man who would fain be happy, cleaving to her with lowly and orderly behavior…”[17]  It sounds like a revelation of Satan’s own longing and ambition.  “To thee revenge the punishment belong, chastising every deed unjust and wrong” says the Orphic Hymn 62 to Dike.[18]  This is essentially the meaning of δίκη in the New Testament (Acts 28:3, 4 NET).

When Paul had gathered a bundle of brushwood and was putting it on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand.  When the local people saw the creature hanging from Paul’s hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer!  Although he has escaped from the sea, Justice (δίκη; KJV: vengeance) herself has not allowed him to live!”

Even when the goddess is forgotten the noun δίκη retains her meaning and purpose (2 Thessalonians 1:8-10a; Jude 1:6, 7 NET).

With flaming fire he will mete out punishment on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.  They will undergo the penalty (δίκην, a form of δίκη; KJV: punished) of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength, when he comes to be glorified among his saints and admired on that day among all who have believed…

You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain but abandoned their own place of residence, he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day.  So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality (ἐκπορνεύσασαι, a form of ἐκπορνεύω) and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment (δίκην, a form of δίκη; KJV: vengeance) of eternal fire.

Philostratus tired of δίκη or the inability of vengeance to produce righteousness in, or secure justice among, human beings: “I am sure that Dike (Justice) will appear in a very ridiculous light; for having been appointed by Zeus and by the Moirai (Fates) to prevent men being unjust to one another, she has never been able to defend herself against injustice.”  In the New Testament δίκη has nothing to do with overcoming ἀδικία in human beings.  Rather, God’s mercy and his love in us through faith in Jesus’ faithfulness crucifies our ἀδικίαν (a form of ἀδικία) and resurrects our new lives into his righteousness through the death and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 7:5, 6 NET).

For when we were in the flesh, the sinful desires, aroused by the law, were active in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.  But now we have been released from the law, because we have died to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code.

For this reason we also, Paul wrote the Colossians, from the day we heard about you, have not ceased praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you may live worthily of the Lord and please him in all respects – bearing fruit in every good deed, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might for the display of all patience and steadfastness, joyfully giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you to share in the saints’ inheritance in the light.  He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves…[19]

The word translated righteousness in—the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel—is δικαιοσύνη (Dikaiosyne), not a goddess but a daimona (δαίμων[20]).  “In the ancient Greek religion, daimon designates not a specific class of divine beings, but a peculiar mode of activity: it is an occult power that drives humans forward or acts against them: since daimon is the veiled countenance of divine activity, every deity can act as daimon…”[21]  The Orphic Hymn 63 says, “O blessed Dikaiosyne, mankind’s delight, the eternal friend of conduct just and right: abundant, venerable, honoured maid, to judgements pure dispensing constant aid, and conscience stable, and an upright mind…”[22]

To the religious mind Dikaiosyne merely dispenses “aid.”  Of course in the New Testament the daimon does not merely “aid” but possesses and takes control, not for anything resembling righteousness: two demon-possessed (δαιμονιζόμενοι, a form of δαιμονίζομαι) men coming from the tombs met [Jesus].  They were extremely violent, so that no one was able to pass by that way.[23]  As Jesus stepped ashore, a certain man from the town met him who was possessed[24] by demons (δαιμόνια, a form of δαιμόνιον).  For a long time this man had worn no clothes and had not lived in a house, but among the tombs.[25]

Ancient Greeks were not unaware of these phenomena, they attributed them to κακοδαίμων: “The Hellenistic Greeks divided daemons into good and evil categories: agathodaimōn (ἀγαθοδαίμων “noble spirit”), from agathós (ἀγαθός “good, brave, noble, moral, lucky, useful”), and kakódaimōn (κακοδαίμων “malevolent spirit”), from kakós (κακός “bad, evil”).”[26]  I assume this determination was made according to how well the daemons’ activities corresponded to the determiner’s own desires: the κακοδαίμων thwarted as the ἀγαθοδαίμων aided those desires.  The derivation of δαίμων is “From δαίω daiō (to distribute fortunes)” according to Strong’s Concordance.

To the religious mind Dikaiosyne dispenses “aid” to those who make pure judgments.  I’m reminded of Peter’s surprise that Cornelius summoned him because an angel appeared and told him to do so: I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people, but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is right is welcomed before him.[27]  That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,[28] –I have not come to call the righteous (δικαίους, a form of δίκαιος), but sinners to repentance,[29] –is a difficult truth for the religious mind to accept.

It is the truth suppressed by unrighteousness (ἀδικίᾳ).  The religious mind jealously guards its own righteousness as its own peculiar possession.  In my opinion Paul experienced a theological crisis[30] over this trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance, and we read the Holy Spirit’s solution to that crisis when we read his letter to the Romans (Romans 3:5-9 NKJV).

But if our unrighteousness (ἀδικία) demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust (ἄδικος) who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.)  Certainly not!  For then how will God judge the world?  For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?  And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.  What then?  Are we better than they?  Not at all.  For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

All unrighteousness (ἀδικίᾳ) is sin…[31]  God will reward each one according to his works…wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness (ἀδικίᾳ).[32]  The arrival of the lawless one will be by Satan’s working with all kinds of miracles and signs and false wonders, and with every kind of evil (ἀδικίας, another form of ἀδικία) deception directed against those who are perishing, because they found no place in their hearts for the truth so as to be saved.  Consequently God sends on them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false.  And so all of them who have not believed the truth but have delighted in evil (ἀδικίᾳ) will be condemned.[33]  

What shall we say then?  Is there injustice (ἀδικία) with God?  Absolutely not!  For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”  So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.[34]

For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.  Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy due to their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy.  For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[35]

This gives me a fairly extensive idea of the truth love rejoices about and the ἀδικία it does not.  Love is not glad about injustice (ἀδικίᾳ), but rejoices in the truth.[36]  Do not extinguish the Spirit,[37] Paul wrote the Thessalonians.  I will suggest that the quickest way to extinguish the Spirit is to take credit for his fruit or to believe that his fruit is anything but the gift of righteousness.[38]  [W]hen the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior.[39]

I’ll continue in the next essay.

Romans, Part 62

Back to Romans, Part 65

[1] Romans 12:12 (NET)

[2] 1 Corinthians 13:6 (NASB)

[3] Romans 1:29-31 (NET)

[4] Romans 1:28b (NET)

[5] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[6] Romans 11:33a (NET)

[7] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[8] John 17:26 (NET)

[9] Romans 13:10b (NET)

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

[11] Pausanias’ description of the Chest of Kypselos and other items at Olympia

[12] Pausanias’ description of the Chest of Kypselos and other items at Olympia

[13] 1 Kings 22:19-23; 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4; Ephesians 2:1-3 (NET)

[14] http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/HoraDike.html

[15] ibid

[16] I am very confused whether this is still future are already past: Then the seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name!”  So he said to them, “I saw Satan (σατανᾶν, a form of Σατανᾶς) fall like lightning from heaven.” (Luke 10:17, 18 NET)

[17] http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/HoraDike.html

[18] ibid

[19] Colossians 1:9-13 (NET)

[20] Then the demons (δαίμονες, a form of δαίμων) begged him, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.” (Matthew 8:31 NET)

[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)

[22] http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Dikaiosyne.html

[23] Matthew 8:28 (NET)

[24] ἔχων [2192] δαιμόνια (literally, “had demons”)

[25] Luke 8:27 (NET)

[26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)

[27] Acts 10:34, 35 (NET)

[28] 1 Timothy 1:15 (NET)

[29] Luke 5:32 (NET)

[30] https://religiousmind.net/2012/10/07/romans-part-23/; https://religiousmind.net/2012/08/04/romans-part-7/; https://religiousmind.net/2012/06/12/pauls-religious-mind/; https://religiousmind.net/2013/04/17/romans-part-42/

[31] 1 John 5:17a (NET)

[32] Romans 2:6, 8 (NET)

[33] 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (NET)

[34] Romans 9:14-16 (NET)

[35] Romans 11:29-32 (NET)

[36] 1 Corinthians 13:6 (NET)

[37] 1 Thessalonians 5:19 (NET)

[38] Romans 5:17 (NET)

[39] Titus 3:4-6 (NET)

Romans, Part 58

Posted on by

In this essay I’ll continue looking at the aftermath of Jesus feeding five thousand plus people in the light of his assessment of the Jewish leaders (Ἰουδαῖοι, a form of Ἰουδαῖος)[1] as an answer to how the Father seeking his own is not self-seeking.  And ultimately it is a continuing part of my attempt to view—Do not lag in zeal, be enthusiastic in spirit, serve the Lord[2]—as a definition of love (ἀγάπη) rather than as rules.  Jesus spoke to those who followed Him not because [they] saw miraculous signs, but because [they] ate all the loaves of bread [they] wanted[3] after they began complaining about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven”[4] (John 6:43-45 NET):

Do not complain about me to one another.  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.  It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’  Everyone who hears and learns from (παρὰ) the Father comes to me.

As I’ve written elsewhere the translation draws may be understating the case a bit if I think in terms of the hymn, “Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling.”[5]  The Greek word ἑλκύσῃ (a form of ἑλκύω) translated draws above means something more like drags more often than not in the New Testament.  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me [drags] him gives a little different picture of the situation.

Jesus’ summary of the prophets—‘And they will all be taught by God’—was translated as follows in the KJV: And they shall be all taught of God.  Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.[6]  To a contemporary ear this may sound like “they will all be taught about God” and “Everyone who has heard and learned about the Father, comes to Jesus.”  The editors of the NKJV, aware of this quirk of contemporary English, clarified the meaning of the text:  ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’  Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.[7]  And it becomes doubly clear when I recognize that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and John felt the need to include the parenthetical: Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from (παρὰ) God – he has seen the Father.[8]

I don’t want to pass by too quickly without examining Jesus’ summary of the prophets: ‘And they will all be taught by God.’  A note in the NET claimed this as a quotation of Isaiah 54:13.  So I’ll look at that chapter a bit (Isaiah 54:4-13a NET):

Don’t be afraid, for you will not be put to shame!  Don’t be intimidated, for you will not be humiliated!  You will forget about the shame you experienced in your youth; you will no longer remember the disgrace of your abandonment.  For your husband is the one who made you – the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) who commands armies is his name.  He is your protector, the Holy One of Israel.  He is called “God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהי) of the entire earth.”

“Indeed, the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) will call you back like a wife who has been abandoned and suffers from depression, like a young wife when she has been rejected,” says your God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהיך).  “For a short time I abandoned you, but with great compassion I will gather you.  In a burst of anger I rejected you momentarily, but with lasting devotion I will have compassion on you,” says your protector, the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה).

“As far as I am concerned, this is like in Noah’s time, when I vowed that the waters of Noah’s flood would never again cover the earth.  In the same way I have vowed that I will not be angry at you or shout at you.  Even if the mountains are removed and the hills displaced, my devotion will not be removed from you, nor will my covenant of friendship be displaced,” says the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), the one who has compassion on you.

“O afflicted one, driven away, and unconsoled!  Look, I am about to set your stones in antimony and I lay your foundation with lapis-lazuli.  I will make your pinnacles out of gems, your gates out of beryl, and your outer wall out of beautiful stones.  All your children will be followers of the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה)…

And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.  And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”[9]

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

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

The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) has made a promise to Israel.  He promises it as the one who fixed the sun to give light by day and the moon and stars to give light by night.  He promises it as the one who stirs up the sea so that its waves roll.  He promises it as the one who is known as the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) who rules over all.[10]

A note in the NET acknowledges that, Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me, might have been translated “listens to the Father and learns.”  The latter translation actually fits the Greek word order (πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν ἔρχεται πρὸς ἐμέ) better than the former.  I’m pleasantly surprised that it was translated as it was.

A narrow path is created by 1) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; 2) ‘And they will all be taught by God;’ and 3) Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me.  I definitely relate this to, So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word (ρήματα, a form of ῥῆμα) of God.[11]  If everyone who hears from God also learns from God, they will all be taught by God carries a different weight than everyone who hears from God must learn on his own to come to Jesus.[12]

I found a thoughtful sermon online from John Piper that accurately portrays the teaching of my religion:

In John 6:44, Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” And in John 12:32, Jesus says, “I will draw all people to myself.” So John 6:44 teaches, I argued last week, that the Father draws people triumphantly to the Son, and all whom he draws come, because the drawing is decisive. And John 12:32 teaches that Jesus draws all to himself.[13]

The solution to this dilemma (dilemma because my religion rejects the notion of universal salvation) is that all in John 12:32 (NET)—And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself—does not mean all people (people is not in the original text).  All means “all the children of God” or “all of my sheep.”[14]  To my mind this limitation disregards, Let God be proven true, and every human being shown up as a liar, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in your words and will prevail when you are judged.”[15]

If the Lord does not wish (βουλόμενος, a form of βούλομαι) for any to perish but for all to come to repentance,[16] we need to consider these “couplets,” as I think of them, in another way.  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him;[17] And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.[18]  So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy;[19] For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[20]  And consider these in the light of his unilateral declaration: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.[21]

All the Lord has to do is declare that these words justify Him to call as many, up to and including all, to repentance as He desires and John Piper and I have no way to contradict Him.  There are three reasons I won’t go all the way and say I believe in universal salvation: 1) I have no standing to tell the Lord He must save all; 2) my own theory how this might be possible, that universal salvation entails universal condemnation, while intellectually satisfying, is emotionally horrifying; and 3) it seems to me that the arguments of Scripture lock me out from determining such a thing at the same time they free me to pray for “the mercy on which everything depends, for it does not depend on human desire or exertion but on You who shows mercy, and You have consigned all to disobedience so that You may show mercy to all.”

Jesus continued (John 6:47-51 NET):

I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life.  I am the bread of life (Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς).  Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.  This is the bread that has come down from heaven, so that a person may eat from it and not die.  I am the living bread that came down from heaven.  If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever.  The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.

Then the Ἰουδαῖοι began to argue with one another, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[22]  The Church’s answer to their question was Transubstantiation.  If Transubstantiation is Jesus’ answer, too, then He might have said: “You will walk to the front of the congregation and kneel before the priest who will give you a morsel of bread and a sip of wine, the substance of which he has changed into my literal body and blood respectively, but it will still look and taste like bread and wine.”  And I’ll read what He actually said in that light (John 6:53-58 NET):

I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.  The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink [Table].  The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him.  Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then later died.  The one who eats this bread will live forever.

In this case I would assume that Jesus deliberately used offensive language to thin the herd of his followers.  If, on the other hand, I believe that Jesus’ answer to their question—How can this man give us his flesh to eat?—came later in the text when He spoke privately with his disciples, I will have a different perspective: The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature (σὰρξ) is of no help![23]  The words (ρήματα, a form of ῥῆμα) that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.[24]

I may still wonder if He spoke something like a parable that may have been misunderstood by others, that He explained to his core disciples, but I also recognize that He spoke of something deeper than my ability to learn in my natural self from spiritual teaching.  And I recall that the concept of eating the words of God was familiar to Jesus’ audience (Ezekiel 3:1-4 NET):

He said to me, “Son of man, eat what you see in front of you – eat this scroll – and then go and speak to the house of Israel.”  So I opened my mouth and he fed me the scroll.

He said to me, “Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your belly with this scroll I am giving to you.”  So I ate it, and it was sweet like honey in my mouth.

He said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak my words to them.”

In this case his hearers may not have been offended because they thought Jesus spoke of cannibalism.  They understood his allusion.  They were offended because Jesus didn’t hand them the law of Moses to eat, but Himself and his own teaching as the Spirit words to be ingested.  They rejected Him not because they were confused but because they understood Him perfectly and their hearts were hardened (Ezekiel 3:5-7 NET):

For you are not being sent to a people of unintelligible speech and difficult language, but to the house of Israel – not to many peoples of unintelligible speech and difficult language, whose words you cannot understand – surely if I had sent you to them, they would listen to you!  But the house of Israel is unwilling to listen to you, because they are not willing to listen to me, for the whole house of Israel is hard-headed and hard-hearted.

 After this many of his disciples quit following him and did not accompany him any longer.  So Jesus said to the twelve, “You don’t want to go away too, do you?”[25]

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom would we go?  You have the words (ρήματα, a form of ῥῆμα) of eternal life.  We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God!”[26] 

If Jesus were only seeking those who have come to believe and to know that [He is] the Holy One of God, then I’m not sure if that would be self-serving or not.  If He is serious about seeking those who are his own in name only but in actual point of fact are hardened and reject Him, it is clear that seeking his own is not self-seeking, but clearly an act of the love that is not self-serving.[27]

[1] John 5:16-47 (NET) Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders (Ἰουδαῖοι) began persecuting him (verse 16) [Table].

[2] Romans 12:11 (NET) Table

[3] John 6:26 (NET)

[4] John 6:41 (NET)

[5] http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Softly_and_Tenderly/

[6] John 6:45 (KJV)

[7] John 6:45 (NKJV)

[8] John 6:46 (NET)

[9] Romans 11:26, 27 (NET)

[10] Jeremiah 31:31-35 (NET)

[11] Romans 10:17 (NKJV)

[12] Even the KJV translators chose this path: Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me (John 6:45b KJV).  Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me (John 6:45b NKJV).  I’m afraid I would have assumed in the past that learned was my own work, to blunt the impact of And they will all be taught by God (e.g., only those who learned by whatever wisdom or virtue they possessed innately would benefit from being taught by God or having heard from God).

[13] http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/they-will-all-be-taught-of-god

[14] http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/they-will-all-be-taught-of-god

[15] Romans 3:4 (NET)

[16] 2 Peter 3:9b (NET)

[17] John 6:44a (NET)

[18] John 12:32 (NET)

[19] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[20] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[21] Romans 9:15 (NET)

[22] John 6:52 (NET)

[23] ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν appears almost as a double negative: “the flesh, no, it assists (is useful, advantageous or profitable, to) no one.”

[24] John 6:63 (NET)

[25] John 6:66, 67 (NET)

[26] John 6:68, 69 (NET)

[27] 1 Corinthians 13:5 (NET)

Romans, Part 56

Posted on by

Ezekiel prophesied: For this is what the sovereign (ʼădônây,  אדני) Lord (yehôvih, יהוה) says: Look, I myself will search for my sheep and seek them out.  As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will seek out my flock.   I will rescue them from all the places where they have been scattered on a cloudy, dark day.[1]  I will seek the lost and bring back the strays; I will bandage the injured and strengthen the sick, but the fat and the strong I will destroy.   I will feed them – with judgment![2]

I will save my sheep; they will no longer be prey.  I will judge between one sheep and another.  I will set one shepherd over them, and he will feed them – namely, my servant David.  He will feed them and will be their shepherd.  I, the Lord (yehôvâh,  יהוה), will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them; I, the Lord (yehôvâh,  יהוה), have spoken![3]

This is a fitting introduction to this section of the story of Jesus feeding five thousand plus people in the light of his assessment of the Jewish leaders (Ἰουδαῖοι, a form of Ἰουδαῖος)[4] as an answer to how the Father seeking his own is not self-seeking.  And ultimately it is a continuing part of my attempt to view—Do not lag in zeal, be enthusiastic in spirit, serve the Lord[5]—as a definition of love (ἀγάπη) rather than as rules.

Matthew Mark Luke

John
And they said, “Should we go and buy bread for two hundred silver coins and give it to them to eat?”  He said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and see.”

Mark 6:37, 38a (NET)

 They replied, “We have no more than five loaves and two fish – unless we go and buy food for all these people.”

Luke 9:13b (NET)
They said to him, “We have here only five loaves and two fish.”  “Bring them here to me,” he replied.

Matthew 14:17, 18 (NET)

 When they found out, they said, “Five – and two fish.”

Mark 6:38b (NET)

 One of Jesus’ disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, “Here is a[6] boy who has[7] five barley loaves and two fish, but what good are these for so many people?” [Table]

John 6:8, 9 (NET)

If I accept John’s contention that— Jesus, when he looked up and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, said to Philip, “Where can we buy bread so that these people may eat?”[8]—I get a slightly different picture of the situation.  I suspect that while Jesus taught and healed the people his disciples, anticipating, were on the lookout for food.  They didn’t really expect to spend two hundred silver coins, the amount Phillip assessed earlier that day: Philip replied, “Two hundred silver coins worth of bread would not be enough for them, for each one to get a little.”[9]

Later that evening when they came to Jesus and said—This is an isolated place and the hour is already late.  Send the crowds away so that they can go into the villages and buy food for themselves[10]—their compassion for the people was tinged by their perceived failure to find a sufficient supply of food.  Mark captured their astonishment when Jesus replied—You give them something to eat—Should we go and buy bread for two hundred silver coins [recalling Philip’s earlier assessment] and give it to them to eat?[11]

How many loaves do you have? Jesus asked.  Go and see.[12]

Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, “Here is a boy who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what good are these for so many people?”[13]

Matthew

 Mark Luke

John
Then he instructed the crowds to sit down on the grass.

Matthew 14:19a (NET)

 Then he directed them all to sit down in groups on the green grass.  So they reclined in groups of hundreds and fifties.

Mark 6:39, 40 (NET)

 Then he said to his disciples, “Have them sit down in groups of about fifty each.”  So they did as Jesus directed, and the people all sat down.

Luke 9:14b, 15 (NET)

 Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” (Now there was a lot of grass in that place.)  So the men sat down…

John 6:10a (NET)
He took the five loaves and two fish, and looking up to heaven he gave thanks and broke the loaves.  He gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds.  They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up the broken pieces left over, twelve baskets full.

Matthew 14:19b, 20 (NET)

 He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. He gave them to his disciples to serve the people, and he divided the two fish among them all.  They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up the broken pieces and fish that were left over, twelve baskets full.

Mark 6:41-43 (NET)

 Then he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven he gave thanks and broke them. He gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd.  They all ate and were satisfied, and what was left over was picked up – twelve baskets of broken pieces.

Luke 9:16, 17 (NET)

 Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed the bread to those who were seated.  He then did the same with the fish, as much as they wanted.  When they were all satisfied, Jesus said to his disciples, “Gather up the broken pieces that are left over,[14] so that nothing is wasted.”  So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with broken pieces from the five barley loaves left over by the people who had eaten [Table].

John 6:11-13 (NET)
Not counting women and children, there were about five thousand men who ate.

Matthew 14:21 (NET)

 Now there were five thousand men who ate the bread.

Mark 6:44 (NET)

 (Now about five thousand men were there.)

Luke 9:14a (NET)

 … about five thousand in number.

John 6:10b (NET)

I have nothing to add to this scene except the words of yehôvih (יהוה) through the prophet Ezekiel: In a good pasture I will feed them; the mountain heights of Israel will be their pasture.  There they will lie down in a lush pasture, and they will feed on rich grass on the mountains of Israel.  I myself will feed my sheep and I myself will make them lie down, declares the sovereign (ʼădônây,  אדני) Lord (yehôvih).[15]  Only John’s Gospel narrative picked up on this.

Matthew

 Mark Luke

John
Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”

John 6:14 (NET)
Immediately (εὐθέως) Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side, while he dispersed the crowds [Table].

Matthew 14:22 (NET)

 Immediately (εὐθὺς) Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dispersed the crowd.

Mark 6:45 (NET)
And after he sent the crowds away, he went up the mountain by himself to pray.

Matthew 14:23a (NET)

 After saying good-bye to them, he went to the mountain to pray.

Mark 6:46 (NET)

 Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.

John 6:15 (NET)

Luke’s Gospel abandoned this particular narrative thread.

Matthew

 Mark

John
When evening came, [Jesus] was there alone.  Meanwhile the boat, already far from land, was taking a beating from the waves because the wind was against it.

Matthew 14:23b, 24 (NET)

 When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the sea and he was alone on the land.  He saw them straining at the oars, because the wind was against them.

Mark 6:47, 48a (NET)

 Now when evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, got into a boat, and started to cross the lake to Capernaum.  (It had already become dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.)  By now a strong wind was blowing and the sea was getting rough.

John 6:16-18 (NET)

John’s Gospel narrative gives me the impression that Jesus’ disciples waited around for Him a bit longer than Matthew’s εὐθέως (translated, immediately NET or straightway KJV) or Mark’s εὐθὺς (translated, immediately NET or straightway KJV) led me at first to believe.  As I look at it now I think εὐθέως and εὐθὺς spoke more to Jesus’ urgency dismissing his disciples because he knew [the people who saw the miraculous sign] were going to come and seize him by force to make him king.

Matthew

 Mark

John
As the night was ending, Jesus came to them walking on the sea.  When the disciples saw him walking on the water they were terrified and said, “It’s a ghost!” and cried out with fear.  But immediately (εὐθὺς) Jesus spoke to them: “Have courage! It is I.  Do not be afraid.”

Matthew 14:25-27 (NET)

 As the night was ending, he came to them walking on the sea, for he wanted to pass by them.  When they saw him walking on the water they thought he was a ghost.  They cried out, for they all saw him and were terrified.  But immediately (εὐθὺς) he spoke to them: “Have courage!  It is I.  Do not be afraid.”

Mark 6:48b-50 (NET)

 Then, when they had rowed about three or four miles, they caught sight of Jesus walking on the lake, approaching the boat, and they were frightened.  But he said to them, “It is I.  Do not be afraid.”

John 6:19, 20 (NET)

Only Matthew recorded what happened next.  I wonder if the tax collector’s prayer Jesus spoke[16] about was Matthew’s (also known as Levi).[17]

Matthew Mark

John
Peter said to him, “Lord, if it is you, order me to come to you on the water.”  So he said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat, walked on the water, and came toward Jesus [Table].  But when he saw the strong wind he became afraid. And starting to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!”  Immediately (εὐθέως) Jesus reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith (ὀλιγόπιστε, a form of ὀλιγόπιστος), why did you doubt?”

Matthew 14:28-31 (NET)

I have written about this before.[18]

Matthew

 Mark

John
When they went up into the boat, the wind ceased.  Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Matthew 14:32, 33 (NET)

 Then he went up with them into the boat, and the wind ceased. They were completely astonished, because they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

Mark 6:51, 52 (NET)

 Then they wanted to take him into the boat, and immediately (εὐθέως) the boat came to the land where they had been heading.

John 6:21 (NET)

Matthew wrote, Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”  Mark wrote, They were completely astonished, because they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.  And John let both stand without comment.  This was curious until I stepped back into the scene.

If I crawl into the boat and look first through Matthew’s eyes as he watched Peter get out of the boat at Jesus’ command and walk on the water toward Him, it’s immaterial to me that Peter began to flounder.  Of course he did.  What was astonishing was that he stood and walked at all!  Truly, Jesus is the Son of God.

If, on the other hand, I get out of the boat with Peter (the presumed source of Mark’s Gospel narrative) and take those few tentative steps, see the wind whipping up the waves, fear and begin to sink… While it is not immaterial that Jesus reached out his hand and caught me, my focus is his question: why did you doubt?  And until the Holy Spirit was given, truly, Peter’s heart was hardened, as were the hearts of all the rest of Jesus’ disciples and all Israel (Isaiah 6 NET): it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.[19]

I’ll continue this thread in the next essay.

Romans, Part 57

[1] Ezekiel 34:11, 12 (NET)

[2] Ezekiel 34:16 (NET)

[3] Ezekiel 34:22-24 (NET)

[4] John 5:16-47 (NET) Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders (Ἰουδαῖοι) began persecuting him (verse 16).

[5] Romans 12:11 (NET) Table

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

[7] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had ὃς here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had ο (KJV: which).

[8] John 6:5 (NET)

[9] John 6:7 (NET)

[10] Matthew 14:15 (NET)

[11] Mark 6:37 (NET)

[12] Mark 6:38a (NET)

[13] John 6:8, 9 (NET)

[14] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had ἐπερίσσευσαν here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had επερισσευσεν (KJV: remained over and above).

[15] Ezekiel 34:14, 15 (NET)

[16] Luke 18:9-14 (NET)

[17] Compare: Matthew 9:9-13, Mark 2:14-17, Luke 5:27-32 (NET)

[18] Romans, Part 17

[19] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

Forgiven or Passed Over? Part 1

Posted on by

Revisiting an essay—David’s Forgiveness, Part 1—I realized I had put an inordinate emphasis on the word forgiven without looking into the meaning of the original Hebrew word.  My suspicion of Bible translators feels at times like a paranoid schizophrenic’s fear of the CIA.  Lapses like this one renew my appreciation for the maxim, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”[1]

This essay could be very short.  I could simply say that Nathan actually responded to David’s confession with the words, Yes, and the Lord has passed over[2] (ʽâbar) your sin.  You are not going to die.[3]  Such a translation would agree with Paul’s assessment of God’s past actions: God in his forbearance had passed over (πάρεσιν, a form of πάρεσις) the sins previously committed.[4]  I could simply accept the text at face value, that ʽâbar is not forgiveness and God is free to exact whatever penalty He chooses.

It seems like an ironclad argument.  But five of the twelve Bibles I checked translate ʽâbar in 2 Samuel 12:13 forgiven or forgives.  Of the remaining seven four have it put away, two are taken away, and one, Jehovah hath caused thy sin to pass away.  How different is that from forgiven really?

ʽâbar 2 Samuel 12:13

Bible Versions
forgiven NET, CEV, NAB
put away ASV, DNT, KJV, NKJV
taken away GWT, NIV
forgives TEV, TMSG
pass away YLT

Do the translators believe that this is all I should expect from the forgiveness God exalted Jesus to give to Israel?  God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness (ἄφεσιν, a form of ἄφεσις) of sins.[5]  Apparently a primary verb to forgive is as absent from holy Hebrew as it is from pagan Greek.  The concept to forgive is either shoehorned into, or extrapolated from, other verbs in both languages.  [Addendum 2/14/2018: This is wrong regarding Hebrew: sâlach (סלח).]  That gives me cause to study ʽâbar in more detail to get a feel for its capacity to carry forgiveness.

I had the opportunity to go home for a month at Christmas.  Home is a relative concept.  I alternated between my mother’s house visiting her, my sister and her husband, and my ex-mother-in-law’s house about a hundred miles north visiting her, my kids, my ex-wife and her husband.  The day after I arrived I attended my son’s wedding.

We all sat in the front row.  I offered the seat next to our ex-wife to my son’s biological father.  He declined the offer and sat next to me.  (Her current husband sat on her other side.)  He is about two years from a painful break-up with his significant other.  He leaned over and whispered to me, “I don’t know how you do it.  I don’t think I could sit next to my ex, smiling, at her son’s wedding.”  He gave me the opportunity to say that I couldn’t take the credit, that it is not my doing so much as my getting out of the way of the Lord’s doing: his love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and firm control.  He received it well and acknowledged that he was seeking a similar peace.

Later, in a phone conversation with another friend who questioned me more specifically about the fruit of the Spirit, I acknowledged that sadly the Lord’s love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and gentleness aren’t always my first impulse.  Sometimes letting the fruit of his Spirit shine through me is a matter of waiting in that firm control until the second, third or fourth impulse holds sway.  But as I think of it now there is something else that makes friendship with my ex-wife possible.

I forgave her for divorcing me.  I forgive her every night I go to bed alone and every morning I wake up.  And I will forgive her for as long as we both shall live.  “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel…[6]  I don’t forgive her because I am so righteous.

Jesus taught us to pray, forgive (ἄφες, a form of ἀφίημι) us our debts, as we ourselves have forgiven (ἀφήκαμεν, another form of ἀφίημι) our debtors.[7]  I, a sinful man in need of the Father’s forgiveness, pray this daily, and I believe Jesus’ saying: For if you forgive (ἀφῆτε, another form of ἀφίημι) others their sins (παραπτώματα, a form of παράπτωμα), your heavenly Father will also forgive (ἀφήσει, another form of ἀφίημι) you.  But if you do not forgive (ἀφῆτε, another form of ἀφίημι) others, your Father will not forgive (ἀφήσει, another form of ἀφίημι) you your sins (παραπτώματα, a form of παράπτωμα).[8]

And here I probably give myself too much credit for rational consistency.  I forgive because I am schooled in this teaching by the Holy Spirit and filled continuously with his love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and firm control.  It occurs to me, however, that one who feels more righteous than I, might feel less need of the Father’s forgiveness and less compulsion to forgive others.  The fault in this logic is that the most righteous man of all prayed, Father, forgive (ἄφες, a form of ἀφίημι) them, for they don’t know what they are doing[9] as He surrendered[10] to his Father’s will.

The Father’s answer to his beloved Son’s request is the hope of all us sinners if it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy[11] (ἐλεῶντος, a form of ἐλεέω).  For God has consigned all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, a form of ἀπείθεια) so that he may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, another form of ἐλεέω) to them all.[12]  What shall we say then?  Is there injustice with God?  Absolutely not!  For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy (ἐλεήσω, another form of ἐλεέω) on whom I have mercy (ἐλεῶ, another form of ἐλεέω), and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[13]

The Greek word ὡς persuades me that forgiveness is, and will be perceived as, a relative as opposed to an absolute concept.  So then, be perfect, as (ὡς) your heavenly Father is perfect.[14]  Whenever you pray, do not be like (ὡς) the hypocrites…[15]  …may your will be done on earth as (ὡς) it is in heaven.[16]  …and forgive us our debts, as (ὡς) we ourselves have forgiven our debtors.[17]  The absolute on/off positions are clear.[18]  But some form of continuum from none to full pardon seems to be indicated by ὡς, contingent upon that quality of forgiveness we extend to others.

Still, I would suggest that we will be inclined to extend the same forgiveness to others that we believe we receive from God.  If that forgiveness seems to include punishment we are more likely to believe that some form of punishment should be meted out with our forgiveness as well.  Or if the one extending such forgiveness has no authority to punish, conditions may be attached, making forgiveness something that must be earned as opposed to something graciously given and received.  I take the interaction between David and Shimei as a case in point.

As David fled from Jerusalem during the events that fulfilled the Lord’s promise to bring disaster (raʽ ) on you from inside your own household,[19] Shimei threw stones and yelled, “Leave!  Leave!  You man of bloodshed, you wicked man!  The Lord has punished (shûb) you for all the spilled blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you rule.  Now the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom.  Disaster (raʽ ) has overtaken you, for you are a man of bloodshed [Table]!”[20]  Clearly, Shimei’s assessment does not agree with Nathan the prophet’s assessment.

Nathan the Prophet’s Assessment

This is what the Lord God of Israel says:

2 Samuel 12:7b (NET) Table

Why have you shown contempt for the word of the Lord by doing evil in my sight?

2 Samuel 12:9a (NET) Table
You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword…

2 Samuel 12:9b (NET)

 …and you have taken his wife as your own!

2 Samuel 2:9c (NET)
You have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.  So now the sword will never depart from your house.

2 Samuel 12:9d, 10a (NET)

 For you have despised me by taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite as your own!

2 Samuel 12:10b (NET) Table
I am about to bring disaster on you from inside your own household!  Right before your eyes I will take your wives and hand them over to your companion.  He will have sexual relations with your wives in broad daylight!  Although you have acted in secret, I will do this thing before all Israel, and in broad daylight.

2 Samuel 12:11, 12 (NET) Table1 Table2
Then David exclaimed to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord!”  Nathan replied to David, “Yes, and the Lord has ʽâbar your sin.  You are not going to die.

2 Samuel 12:13 (NET) Table
Nonetheless, because you have treated the Lord with such contempt in this matter, the son who has been born to you will certainly die.

2 Samuel 12:14 (NET) Table

The Hebrew word translated punished (shûb) is not found among the words the Lord God of Israel spoke through Nathan,[21] though I have certainly interpreted them as if they described recompense.  As a child I assumed that “forgiveness” only pertained to hell.  I believed that God would still punish me for my sins some other way.  He couldn’t help Himself, I thought, it’s who He is.

Abishai couldn’t tolerate hearing his king and commander spoken to as Shimei had spoken to him: Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king?  Let me go over (ʽâbar) and cut off his head![22]  Abishai’s use of ʽâbar doesn’t sound much like forgiveness, but David said, “What do we have in common, you sons of Zeruiah?  If he curses because the Lord has said to him, ‘Curse David!’, who can say to him, ‘Why have you done this [Table]?’”[23]  David exercised what I have come to call an experimental faith (2 Samuel 16:11, 12 NKJV):

And David said to Abishai and all his servants, “See how my son who came from my own body seeks my life.  How much more now may this Benjamite?  Let him alone, and let him curse; for so the Lord has ordered him [Table].  It may be that the Lord will look on my affliction, and that the Lord will repay (shûb) me with good for his cursing this day [Table].”

As David returned, lamenting his Pyrrhic victory[24] over his son Absalom, Shimei was one of the first[25] to greet him.  Don’t think badly of me, my lord, he said, and don’t recall the sin of your servant on the day when you, my lord the king, left Jerusalem!  Please don’t call it to mind!  For I, your servant, know that I sinned, and I have come today as the first of all the house of Joseph to come down to meet my lord the king.[26]  These are reminiscent of David’s words after Nathan confronted him (Psalm 51:1-3 NET):

Have mercy on me, O God, because of your loyal love!  Because of your great compassion, wipe away my rebellious acts! [Table]  Wash away my wrongdoing!  Cleanse me of my sin! [Table]  For I am aware of my rebellious acts; I am forever conscious of my sin [Table].

Abishai, who may have been hiding with David in the cave when Saul entered to relieve himself,[27] pursued a pious good (possibly expecting David’s approval): For this should not Shimei be put to death?  After all, he cursed the Lord’s anointed (mâshı̂yach)![28]  But David seemed to pursue something more like a beautiful good: What do we have in common, you sons of Zeruiah?  You are like my enemy today!  Should anyone be put to death in Israel today?  Don’t you realize that today I am king over Israel?[29]

David said to Shimei, “You won’t die.”  The king vowed an oath concerning this.[30]  Here it sounds like he forgave Shimei.  But apparently that wasn’t the case.  He held onto his grudge against Shimei for the rest of his life.  With his dying breath[31] he instructed Solomon, another son by Bathsheba (1 Kings 2:8, 9 NET):

Note well, you still have to contend with Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who tried to call down upon me a horrible judgment when I went to Mahanaim.  He came down and met me at the Jordan, and I solemnly promised him by the Lord, ‘I will not strike you down with the sword.’  But now don’t treat him as if he were innocent.  You are a wise man and you know how to handle him; make sure he has a bloody death.

The Lord however didn’t treat David that way.  He didn’t recall David’s sin when He spoke to Jeroboams’s wife by Ahijah the prophet (1 Kings 14:7, 8 NET Table1 Table2):

“Go, tell Jeroboam, ‘This is what the Lord God of Israel says: “I raised you up from among the people and made you ruler over my people Israel.  I tore the kingdom away from the Davidic dynasty and gave it to you. But you are not like my servant David, who kept my commandments and followed me wholeheartedly by doing only (raq) what I approve.”’”

This is another reason I wish to look deeper into ʽâbar.  Whatever it means, it altered reality for the God, who does not lie[32] when He extended it to David.

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98153-just-because-you-re-paranoid-doesn-t-mean-they-aren-t-after-you

[2] The first occurrence in the Bible is Genesis 8:1b (NKJV), And God made a wind to pass (ʽâbar) over the earth, and the waters subsided.

[3] 2 Samuel 12:13b (NET) Table

[4] Romans 3:25b (NET)

[5] Acts 5:31 (NET)

[6] Malachi 2:16a (NET) Table

[7] Matthew 6:12 (NET) Table

[8] Matthew 6:14, 15 (NET) Table

[9] Luke 23:34a (NET) Table

[10] Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and that he would send me more than twelve legions of angels right now?  How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled (πληρωθῶσιν, a form of πληρόω)? (Matthew 26:53, 54 NET) Table

[11] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[12] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[13] Romans 9:14, 15 (NET)

[14] Matthew 5:48 (NET)

[15] Matthew 6:5a (NET) Table

[16] Matthew 6:10b (NET)

[17] Matthew 6:12 (NET)

[18] Matthew 6:14, 15 (NET)

[19] 2 Samuel 12:11 (NET) Table

[20] 2 Samuel 16:7, 8 (NET)

[21] It does occur in the description of events leading up to and following those words (2 Samuel 11:4, 15; 12:23) but seems to be used in its more literal sense, to return.

[22] 2 Samuel 16:9 (NET)

[23] 2 Samuel 16:10 (NET)

[24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory See: 2 Samuel 18:33 (NET)

[25] 2 Samuel 19:16 (NET)

[26] 2 Samuel 19:19, 20 (NET)

[27] 1 Samuel 24:3 (NET)

[28] 2 Samuel 19:21 (NET)  See also: 1 Samuel 24:6 (NET)

[29] 2 Samuel 19:22 (NET)

[30] 2 Samuel 19:23 (NET)

[31] 1 Kings 2:10 (NET)

[32] Titus 1:2 (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)

Apostles and Prophets, Part 1

Posted on by

As I considered the relationship of Moses the prophet and Aaron the priest in Numbers 16 it occurred to me that my religion all but outlaws apostles and prophets. I even wrote that in the essay.  But as I turned to Jesus’ response to the argument he walked down the mount of transfiguration into I thought better of taking on an argument over apostles and prophets in that essay.  Still, the urge to do so persisted.

I suppose that everyone who is called by God, born from above[1] and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit walks down from that experience into 2,000 years of theological arguments with the implicit task of choosing sides or adjudicating between them.  Generally, I try to avoid theological arguments.  Time to study the Bible is precious.  If I spend it on arguments, I am not led by the Holy Spirit but by the people who started the arguments.

But since I have quipped to friends that one way of viewing Evangelicalism is as a mutiny of pastors and teachers against apostles and prophets I have apparently chosen a side without serious thought or consideration. I’m obligated now to be led around by the nose for a time by those who defend the assertion that apostles and prophets are no longer necessary or authorized by God.

My starting position was: why would anyone hope to be church in a hostile environment without such marvelously gifted people? As usual, once I took the time to formulate a coherent question the Holy Spirit was ready with an answer (Jeremiah 31:33, 34 NET):

“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the Lord.  “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds.  I will be their God and they will be my people.  People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me.  For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the Lord.  “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done” [Table].

I asked an older friend if these verses were the goal, aim, purpose, end (τέλος) of the church, the body of Christ. (My friend doesn’t care much for church as a translation of ἐκκλησία.)  The initial response was a qualified, “No, this is for the nation of Israel.”  But that position softened as Paul’s words came to mind: Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root…[2]  My own impression that these verses do serve as τέλος for the ἐκκλησία began to harden as I recalled Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 4:7, 11-13 NET):

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ….It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature.

Prior to this approach I would have lined up the above verses right beside Paul’s mention of the same in his letter to the Corinthians as evidence of an ongoing role for both apostles and prophets (1 Corinthians 12:27, 28 NET):

Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you is a member of it.  And God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helps, gifts of leadership, different kinds of tongues.

When I quipped about mutiny I had assumed that first, second and third were meant as a ranking of authority.  This time I could hear the possibility of a temporal ordering of arrival (and departure?) on the scene.  The net effect for me is not unlike voir dire.[3]

Many years ago I was impaneled for jury selection on a criminal case. As I sat across from the defendants in the courtroom there wasn’t a single doubt in my mind that they were guilty.  How else could they have gotten so far through the system?  After the defense attorneys in particular had a go at me during voir dire I didn’t have a clue whether the defendants were guilty or not.  I can only assume that the prosecutors had a similar impact on any who walked in assuming the defendants were innocent because the police and courts only exist to oppress and victimize black people. Voir dire is a very clever procedure for detecting and highlighting bias.

So I began this investigation with my biases exposed and confused. I typed “apostles no longer necessary” into Google and “No Prophets or Apostles Today”[4] by Lori Eldridge appeared at the top of the list.  The first step in her argument was to distinguish between gift and office.

Gift

Office
…the “gift” of prophecy (defending and speaking forth the ESTABLISHED Word of God)… …the “Office” of Prophet (speaking forth NEW revelations from God and establishing scripture).
The gift of prophecy is still in effect… …but not the office of Prophet…

The same can be said for the gift vs the office of Apostle…
…and the former to build new churches on that foundation already established. …the latter being for the purpose to lay the foundation for the Church…

The gift of apostle and prophet is fairly easy to find in the Bible. But to each one of us grace (χάρις) was given (ἐδόθη, a form of δίδωμι) according to the measure of the gift (δωρεᾶς, a form of δωρεά) of Christ.[5] It was he who gave (ἔδωκεν, another form of δίδωμι) some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers…[6]  The office of apostle and prophet is a bit more elusive.  But to say that there is no office of apostle and prophet in the Bible is not quite the same as saying that there was an office of apostle and prophet but it exists no longer.  So I’ll spend some time trying to track down the meaning of office of apostle or prophet.

And it came to pass, that while [a priest (ἱερεύς) named Zacharias[7]] executed the priest’s office (ἱερατεύειν, a form of ἱερατεύω) before God in the order of his course, According to the custom of the priest’s office (ἱερατείας, a form of ἱερατεία), his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.[8]  The concept priest’s office is not two words in Greek but one: ἱερατεύειν in the first instance and ἱερατείας in the second.  I should point out that ἱερατεύειν was translated serving as priest in NKJV and ἱερατείας as of the priesthood.  There is a trend toward eliminating the word office over time.  Be that as it may the priest’s office helps clarify the meaning of office.

The requirements, duties, rights and privileges of priests were spelled out in great detail in the law. The law makes the office – official. And those of the sons of Levi who receive the priestly office (ἱερατείαν, another form of ἱερατεία) have authorization (ἐντολὴν, a form of ἐντολή) according to the law to collect a tithe from the people, that is, from their fellow countrymen, although they too are descendants of Abraham.[9] In the New Testament in Modern Speech (MSNT) Hebrews 5:1-4 is translated as follows:

For every High Priest is chosen from among men, and is appointed to act on behalf of men in matters relating to God, in order to offer both gifts and sin-offerings, and must be one who is able to bear patiently with the ignorant and erring, because he himself also is beset with infirmity.  And for this reason he is required to offer sin-offerings not only for the people but also for himself.  And no one takes this honorable office (τιμὴν, a form of τιμή) upon himself, but only accepts it when called to it by God, as Aaron was.

The KJV translated τιμὴν as honour.  The translators of the more recent translation added the concept office to that honour.  But I find no fault with the concept of a priestly office carefully delineated in law.  So the question comes to mind, what law authorizes the office of apostle?

Lori Eldridge began as follows:

The following shows us the requirements of the replacement for Judas:

Acts 1:21-26, “Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION.”

This quotation is from the NIV. It is preceded by: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office (ἐπισκοπὴν, a form of ἐπισκοπή) let another take.[10]  At least that’s how ἐπισκοπὴν was translated in the ASV and the NKJV.  The KJV translated it bishopric, and the NIV place of leadership.  But if I am going to find a law authorizing an office of apostle, the word of an apostle seems a likely place to start—on the surface of it.  But watch what happens if I expand the context.

Jesus had told Peter, Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me.  For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.[11]  Instead, prior to receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter took it upon himself to replace one of the Apostles Jesus had chosen[12] (Luke 6:12-16 NET).

Now it was during this time that Jesus went out to the mountain to pray, and he spent all night in prayer to God.  When morning came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles:  Simon (whom he named Peter), and his brother Andrew; and James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

So what did Jesus do? He made a personal appearance on the road to Damascus and chose Saul, a Pharisee who persecuted the early believers.  I can’t say that Jesus deliberately confounded Peter’s rule for apostle selection, because I believe that God’s prerogative—I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion[13]—trumps all law.  I can say that Saul was not one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us, Peter’s stated prerequisite that Ms. Eldridge quoted but did not emphasize in all capital letters: For one of these (ἕνα τούτων) must become (γενέσθαι,a form of γίνομαι) A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION.

In John’s vision on Patmos the wall of the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God[14] was described as having twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.[15]  I wonder if those who believe that Peter created (and limited) the office of Apostle as stated in Acts 1:21-26 also believe that Matthias will be the twelfth name on those foundations.  If it seems like I’m lobbying for Paul, I am not.

In the past I have lobbied for Paul. But now that I know him better and Jesus through his writing I hope that the twelfth name is Judas Iscariot.  I can’t imagine a more beautiful memorial to the grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ.  And I think Paul would agree with me: so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling…[16] So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.[17] For the gifts (χαρίσματα, a form of χάρισμα) and the call of God are irrevocable.[18]

And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”[19]

But perhaps the office of Apostle precedes Peter’s questionable rule as ἐπισκοπὴν (translated office in the ASV) precedes it.  I’ll look into that in the next essay.  For now I want to wrap-up by saying that this is not an enjoyable pastime for me.

Lori Eldridge was “raised in a cult as a child,” and “saved through Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth.”[20]  It seems that she hears or reads sermons or religious writings and the Holy Spirit brings Scripture to mind that contradicts what the preacher preached or wrote.  Though her faith allows her to declare those the Holy Spirit contradicts false prophets and teachers[21] and mine does not, I might still be better served by trying to befriend her rather than by disputing with her.

People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me.  For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me, the Lord promised through Jeremiah.  It seems fitting here to highlight the equalizing power of the Bible.  With it, led by the Holy Spirit, Lori Eldridge challenges prophets and teachers and declares them false.  With the Bible, led by the Holy Spirit, I can question the wisdom of Peter’s actions and whether his word established a rule for an office of apostle.  None of that changes if apostles and prophets are still active (and necessary) in the ἐκκλησία.

Apostles and Prophets, Part 2

[1] John 3:3 (NET)

[2] Romans 11:17 (NET)

[3] http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2229

[4] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/noproph.html

[5] Ephesians 4:7 (NET)

[6] Ephesians 4:11 (NET)

[7] Luke 1:5 (KJV)

[8] Luke 1:8, 9 (KJV)

[9] Hebrews 7:5 (NET)

[10] Acts 1:20 (ASV)

[11] Acts 1:4, 5 (NET)

[12] John 6:70, 71 (NET)

[13] Romans 9:15 (NET)

[14] Revelation 21:10 (NET)

[15] Revelation 21:14 (NET)

[16] Romans 9:11 (NET)

[17] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[18] Romans 11:29 (NET)

[19] Romans 11:26, 27 (NET)

[20] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/statement.html

[21] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 8

Posted on by

To reveal my own position and velocity[1] it is probably past time that I at least outline my own religious background.  And here, I’ll take the lazy way out.  Matt Slick has done it for me in his “Doctrine Grid”[2] online.  He acknowledged that “some of these are debatable…I do not claim absolute correctness on all points–only the essentials.”  I’m not going to debate his points beyond pointing out that Mr. Slick offers them as “a layout of biblical orthodoxy” and I offer them only as an outline of my religious background, both its content and tone.

Though I live among them I don’t understand my people, those of my religious background, as it pertains to the hope and promise of universal salvation in the Scriptures.  I think I understand what might motivate someone like Richard Wayne Garganta to eliminate “hell talk” from the Bible.  But I can’t get a handle on what might motivate someone to eliminate the hope and promise of universal salvation from the Bible.  “It’s not there!” is a form of blindness.

A puff piece[3] about Matt Chandler in the May 2014 issue of Christianity Today caught my attention as I considered these things:

For a long time, Chandler had prayed for his dad to know Christ.  “I remember being confused with the idea of [Dad having] free will, but then me asking God to save him. To me those two things were incompatible.”
He found the answer in classically reformed teachings, especially those of John Piper. Chandler embraces the view that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell.[4]

I’m not going to say much about free will except to offer my opinion that it represents the contingent choices we make—contingent choices with a really good press agent.  I will look deeper into “the view that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell.”  We certainly knew of that view in my religion.  Our essentially fundamentalist church had separated from the Congregationalists as they embraced “modernism.”[5]  It was joined later by others separating from the Presbyterians for similar reasons, a group who held views similar to Matt Chandler’s.   My family shared a more “whosoever will may come” view.

It seemed fairer somehow.  Could God be other than fair?  He has given everyone on the planet an equal opportunity to choose to trust Him.  Salvation, therefore, is left ultimately up to an individual’s choice.  That seemed consistent enough with the Old Testament, and except for Paul’s writings and Jesus’ sayings more or less consistent with the New Testament as I understood it at the time.

So, is “God predestines some to heaven and others to hell” a fair inference from God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden[6]?  I still don’t think so.  It requires me to reject the hope and promise of universal salvation revealed in Scripture (a Christian heresy[7] according to Matt Slick and a host of others, my people all).  Consider the context (Romans 9:17, 18 NET):

For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.”  So then, God has mercy (ἐλεεῖ, a form of ἐλεέω) on whom he chooses (θέλει, a form of θέλω) to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses (θέλει, a form of θέλω) to harden.

I can say with full conviction on the authority of Scripture that the chariots of Pharaoh and his army [yehôvâh] has thrown into the sea, and his chosen officers were drowned in the Red Sea.[8]  I can’t say with the same confidence that Pharaoh or his army will spend eternity in hell.   Yehôvâh, as revealed by Paul, thinks differently than Matt Chandler or Matt Slick on this subject (Romans 11:30, 31 NET).

Just as you were formerly disobedient (ἠπειθήσατε, a form of ἀπείθεια), so they too have now been disobedient (ἠπείθησαν, another form of ἀπειθέω) in order that, by the mercy (ἐλέει, a form of ἔλεος) shown to you, they too may now receive mercy (ἐλεηθῶσιν, another form of ἐλεέω).

Paul referred specifically here to his own people, my fellow countrymen, who are Israelites,[9] and all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints.[10]  But I can’t find any compelling reason to discriminate against an ancient Pharaoh and his army: For God has consigned all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, another form of ἀπείθεια) so that he may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, another form of ἐλεέω) to…all.[11]  So while—it does not depend on human desire (θέλοντος, another form of θέλω)or exertion, but on God who shows mercy (ἐλεῶντος, another form of ἐλεέω )[12]—is a potent antidote to the “whosoever will may come” religious view of my youth, it is clearly coupled with the hope of universal salvation: God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to…all.

Jesus’ saying—No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws (ἑλκύσῃ, a form of ἑλκύω) him, and I will raise him up at the last day[13]—is a stronger refutation of “whosoever will may come” unless one takes ἑλκύσῃ to mean “Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling.”[14]  In that case, Jesus’ promise of universal salvation—And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (ἑλκύσω, another form of ἑλκύω) all…to myself[15]—becomes little more than a promise of equal opportunity:  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will softly and tenderly call all people to myself.  But I’m not convinced that ἑλκύσῃ and ἑλκύσω will dance to that tune.

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, called to it softly and tenderly, and it rose up out of its scabbard and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear.  The Scripture says, Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out (εἵλκυσεν, another form of ἑλκύω) and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear.[16]  The King James translators chose drew for εἵλκυσεν, making the connection to Jesus’ sayings clear even in English: Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear.[17]  Here any English speaking person might consider how much say the sword had regarding when, how or for what purpose it was drawn.

“Throw your net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some [fish],” Jesus told his disciples.  So they threw the net, and were not able to pull (ἑλκύσαι, another form of ἑλκύω) it in because of the large number of fish.[18]  Here the net resisted, because it was too heavy for the disciples to pull up out of the water and into their boat.  But it was no match for Peter dragging it ashore: So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled (εἵλκυσεν, another form of ἑλκύω) the net to shore.[19]  And again, the King James translators made the comparison to Jesus’ sayings obvious:  they were not able to draw it in.[20]

Here are a few more examples of forms of ἑλκύω from Luke and James:

“Whosoever will may come”

Bible
But when her owners saw their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and softly and tenderly called them into the marketplace before the authorities. But when her owners saw their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged (εἵλκυσαν, another form of ἑλκύω) them into the marketplace before the authorities.

Acts 16:19 (NET)
The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together.  They seized Paul and softly and tenderly called him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut. The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together.  They seized Paul and dragged (εἷλκον, another form of ἑλκύω) him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut.

Acts 21:30 (NET)
But you have dishonored the poor!  Are not the rich oppressing you and softly and tenderly calling you into the courts? But you have dishonored the poor!  Are not the rich oppressing you and dragging (ἕλκουσιν, another form of ἑλκύω) you into the courts?

James 2:6 (NET)

It does not behoove the God-predestines-some-to-heaven-and-others-to-hell folk to call out the whosoever-will-may-come folk on this point.  The former are as opposed to universal salvation as the latter.  Still, it seems to me if I understand Jesus’ sayings correctly—No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me [drags] him and, And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will [drag] all…to myself—I get a clearer picture of the human condition and the hope and promise of God in Christ.

The only person I want to condemn to hell is my old man, not my father, but the sin in my flesh.  I have had a remarkably blessed life.  No one raped and murdered my mother, my sister, my daughter or my wives.  Divorce is the most difficult sin I’ve been called upon to forgive.  And I love the women who divorced me.  I certainly wouldn’t want to see them condemned to an eternity in hell because they found living with me unendurable.  But by wishing my old man condemned to hell I have condemned the whole world.

Gentle Heart suggested that final judgment could be like the judgment of wheat and chaff: “So maybe John 5:28 and 29 can be talking about all us dead being raised and our ‘old selves’ get condemned and our ‘new selves’ live eternally with the Lord.”  It’s an intriguing idea that seems to satisfy the long name of God.

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

Exodus 34:6, 7a (NET)

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

Exodus 34:7b (NET)

The main objection would be the apparent need for postmortem salvation in some (or, many) cases.  But that is really only an objection from the human perspective, the impossibility of believing in Jesus for salvation when one faces Him in judgment.  But from the divine perspective there is no law or rule, no circumstance of life or death that prohibits God from showing mercy: I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.[21]  Salvation does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.[22]  And, God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[23]  In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, Paul encouraged Timothy, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers.[24]

There is a satisfying symmetry to the idea that universal salvation entails universal condemnation.  But I’ve had a lifetime to identify with the new man.[25]  If God condemned the sin in my flesh to an eternity in hell, I think I could bid the old man Godspeed and good riddance.  But consider one born from above by the calling of God at, or after, the final judgment.

I know how often I have oscillated between the old and new man when they were in the same geographical and space/time location.  Imagine the trauma of oscillating between the more familiar old man and the relatively strange new man when one is in hell and the other is face to face with God.  Still, the Holy Spirit has seen, and sees, me through my conflict and confusion.  I don’t doubt that He could comfort one in the throes of that terror.

I can’t say this is the way God fulfills his desire to be merciful while He by no means leaves the guilty unpunished.  I can only say, Gentle Heart, in the spirit of Jonathan Edwards’ argument for God as the Superlative Torturer, that if we can imagine this wheat and chaff solution to the dilemma of universal salvation, how many more solutions can the living God conceive and execute to satisfy the desire of his, and your, gentle heart.

[1] Who Am I? Part 1

[2] Doctrine Grid

[3] I call it a puff piece because I have no doubt that the editors will publish a hatchet job about the very same preacher if he slips financially or sexually, or strays doctrinally too far from what the editors feel they can sell as Christianity Today.

[4] “The Joy-Stung Preacher,” Joe Maxwell, Christianity Today, May 2014, p. 39

[5] Theological Liberalism

[6] Romans 9:18 (NET)

[7] Can a Christian be a universalist?

[8] Exodus 15:4 (NET)

[9] Romans 9:3, 4 (NET)

[10] Romans 1:7 (NET)

[11] Romans 11:32 (NET)  A note in the NET acknowledges that “them” was added for stylistic reasons.

[12] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[13] John 6:44 (NET)

[14] Softly and Tenderly

[15] John 12:32 (NET)  NET note: “Grk ‘all.’ The word ‘people’ is not in the Greek text but is supplied for stylistic reasons and for clarity (cf. KJV ‘all men’).”  See: Colossians 1:15-20 (NET)

[16] John 18:10a (NET) Table

[17] John 18:10a (NKJV) Table

[18] John 21:6 (NET)

[19] John 21:11a (NET)

[20] John 21:6 (NKJV)

[21] Exodus 33:19b (NET) Table

[22] Romans 9:16 (NET)

[23] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[24] 1 Timothy 4:10 (NET)

[25] Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:9, 10 (NET)

Torture, Part 4

Posted on by

Suspecting that my antipathy (and objections) to Jonathan Edwards’ contention that God is the Superlative Torturer are rooted in my personal history, I need to revisit the long name of God for perspective.

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

Exodus 34:6, 7a (NET)

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

Exodus 34:7b (NET)

Intellectually, I can see that the things I’ve been looking into in Revelation fall under the heading of not leaving the guilty unpunished.  Rationally, I can see that this long name is an accurate description of who God is, one unified God.  But I don’t know the One who 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, not experientially.  I deserve to know Him that way.  I’ve earned the right, so to speak.  But I don’t know Him like that.  I know 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.

Asaph[1] apparently knew God as the One who by no means leaves the guilty unpunished.  I suffer all day long, he wrote, and am punished every morning.[2]  Of course he acknowledged that he felt that way when: my feet almost slipped; my feet almost slid out from under me (Table).  For I envied those who are proud, as I observed the prosperity of the wicked (Table).[3]  And I most felt like Asaph as “a philosophical and legalistic young man fighting my way back from atheism,”[4] obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.[5]

I don’t think I was particularly obsessed with money.  I was giving money and continually amazed that I always had enough.  I wanted some fame or power or prestige or position, and thought that “obeying” God by striving to keep the law, or the love that is the fulfillment of the law[6] as if Paul’s definition were a list of laws, was a means to that end.  I was “punished” constantly then.  But all I really meant by God’s “punishment,” or his “blessing” for that matter, was how things worked out according to my hopes, my dreams, my plans or my schemes.  When things went my way I was “blessed,” and I was “punished” when they didn’t.

This wasn’t always the case, however.  Though I didn’t think in these terms then, at seventeen He who 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 was the One I worshiped and loved as much as it is possible to love such a One.  Punishment is the currency of childhood.  It’s how one pays for what he wants.  I didn’t actually know this God in any experiential way.  I believed in Him.  He made sense to me.  I claimed to believe in Jesus’ salvation.  And I suppose I did to some degree, but that was heaven.  Heaven was as far away as Disneyland.  And my family couldn’t afford Disneyland either.

I don’t recall knowing the long name of God, but I knew the Ten Commandments: I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me [Table], but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments [Table].[7]  I had no clue that the ones who loved Him and kept his commandments were the ones He had shown mercy.  If you had told me it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy,[8] I wouldn’t have believed you, not by seventeen.  I “knew” I didn’t love God enough or keep his commandments enough to “earn” his mercy.  That’s why I trusted Jesus for a place in heaven rather than in hell.  But as for the rest of it, I “knew” I would pay in punishment.

At seventeen I don’t think I knew the law that reads, If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.  If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.[9]  I would be hard-pressed to confirm that anyone I knew had ever heard of this law.  We believed in the sin of premarital sex.  I knew the law about rape (Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 NKJV).

If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out [Table], then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days [Table].

This law was impossible to avoid.  I read it on different occasions in anti-God and antinomian polemics.  I even checked the reference in the Bible to see if it was true; that is, that it was actually in the Bible as the polemicists claimed.  One might argue that I should have inferred the former law from the latter.  I can’t disagree.  I wrote[10] that I had a “philosophical bent of mind.”  While true, it doesn’t mean that I was any good necessarily at doing philosophy.  I was embarrassed and frustrated by this law.  Why did God force women to marry their rapists?!  But neither my embarrassment nor my frustration raised a single question in my mind regarding the validity of the sin of premarital sex.  I believed in the sin of premarital sex with all my heart, the laws of God notwithstanding.

Such was the state of my “faith” when my highschool girlfriend and I fucked[11] for the first time.  I don’t use the term fucked to be insulting, demeaning or derogatory but in the hope of finding a word in English that will carry the weight of eros in Greek.  Sexual intercourse is about inserting an erect penis into a vagina and thrusting and relaxing to stimulate the nerves in the head of the penis and the clitoris until an explosive pleasure sensation called an orgasm is achieved.  What I mean by fuck, fucked or fucking has everything to do with sexual intercourse, and nothing to do with it except as an entry portal or an ongoing celebration of a wondrous and unimaginable relationship with another person of the opposite sex, a relationship that artists have spent their lifetimes attempting to capture, celebrate or recreate in music, dance, art, sculpture, poetry and drama.

Before we fucked, my girlfriend and I were two teenagers too shy to remove our underwear as we crawled under the covers.  Afterward in the bath together a Bible verse came to mind, And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.[12]  I felt like I understood that verse for the first time.  But it didn’t dissuade me that I would be punished for the sin of premarital sex.

I had some very specific punishments in mind.  Pregnancy was top of that list.  Obviously children were God’s primary punishment for fucking.  My Dad had warned me to watch out for women who would trick me into caring for their children.[13]  Protestants were a little wishy-washy on the sin of birth control as a way to avoid God’s punishment for fucking, but Catholics were strong and on target on this issue.  My girlfriend and I were well-versed in the “Brave New World”[14] and had our Malthusian drill[15] down pat.  We never fucked without at least one method of contraception, and often two.  The idea that a couple might become so impassioned they forgot their Malthusian drill was inconceivable to us.

Venereal disease was number two on God’s list of punishments for fucking.  But we were both virgins when we started fucking.  I had the desire to expand this fucking relationship to others, until I actually tried to initiate it.  Though I didn’t know the law about seducing virgins intellectually, I felt that law written in my heart when I attempted to fuck another virgin.  “I returned to [my girlfriend] quite contrite actually, confessed my sin and asked for her hand in a much more traditional marriage.”[16]  But even that didn’t alert me that I might not be punished for the sin of premarital sex.  I really don’t think I recognized my aversion to committing adultery as God’s law written in my heart anyway.  I probably just thought it was my idea, or that I “loved” my first girlfriend more.

Finally, death was the punishment I thought most likely for the sin of premarital sex, given that we had outsmarted God twice before.  I didn’t think God would, or maybe could, kill me outright.  Miracles, God breaking the laws of science, were kind of a sketchy issue in my thinking at the time.  But Vietnam was a very real possibility.  And it would be quite easy for Him to kill me there.  When the draft lottery all but guaranteed that I would never be drafted, I still didn’t suspect that God had no intention of punishing me for the sin of premarital sex.

One more opportunity comes to mind.  Every time we fucked in my girlfriend’s bedroom she put three albums on the stereo: Every Picture Tells a Story,[17] Rod Stewart; Who’s Next,[18] The Who; and Aqualung,[19] Jethro Tull.  I tolerated Rod Stewart because I loved her.  Secretly, I called the album “Every Picture Tells a Story Donut,” after the repeated line in the title track.  Who’s Next became more important after she left me for someone else.  Aqualung made a deep and immediate impression.

The song “Wind-Up” spoke particularly to me.  I learned years later that the only required subject in English public schools was the Bible.  That explained why British progressive rock was obsessed with biblical themes.  It also made more sense to me why Ian Anderson[20] left school with “their God tucked underneath my arm.”[21]

So I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm —
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said — I’m not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
So to my old headmaster (and to anyone who cares):
before I’m through I’d like to say my prayers —
I don’t believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong —
He’s not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.

Looking back now, I clearly had everything “all wrong.”  I remember entertaining the notion that God was trying to communicate to me through the words of this song.  I even went back to the Bible to see if I could find what I had gotten “all wrong.”  But the Bible said the same thing to me it always said: “God’ll getcha if you don’t watch out!”  I decided that there was no way anyone who looked like Ian Anderson could possibly know anything that could stand up to two thousand years of Christian theology (no matter how catchy the tune).  And there was no way I was going to get out of being punished for the sin of premarital sex.

Nothing could persuade me otherwise.  Even when I wasn’t punished for the sin of premarital sex, nothing clicked, no light bulbs went off.  Instead, I felt rationally obligated to become an atheist because God would have punished me for the sin of premarital sex.

[2] Psalm 73:14 (NET) Table

[3] Psalm 73:2, 3 (NET)

[5] 1 Timothy 6:4b, 5 (NKJV)

[6] Romans 13:10b (NET)

[7] Exodus 20:5b, 6 (NKJV)

[8] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[9] Exodus 22:16, 17 (NKJV)

[12] Genesis 2:25 (NKJV)

Fear – Exodus, Part 4

Posted on by

Here I continue to see the Lord cultivating the fear that is a conviction to act in accordance with his word in Israel.  It happened at midnight – the Lord attacked all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the prison, and all the firstborn of the cattle.[1]  But the plague of the firstborn did not touch the Israelites who heard the word of the Lord and marked their doors with the blood of the Passover lamb: For the Lord will pass through to strike Egypt, and when he sees the blood on the top of the doorframe and the two side posts, then the Lord will pass over the door, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you.[2]

Pharaoh got up in the night, along with all his servants and all Egypt, and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was no house in which there was not someone dead.  Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron in the night and said, “Get up, get out from among my people, both you and the Israelites! Go, serve the Lord as you have requested!  Also, take your flocks and your herds, just as you have requested, and leave.  But bless me also.”[3]

And so the descendents of Israel (and others) left Egypt:  There were about 600,000 men on foot, plus their dependants.  A mixed multitude also went up with them, and flocks and herds – a very large number of cattle.[4]  A note in the NET reads: “The ‘mixed multitude’ (עֵרֶב רַב, ’erev rav) refers to a great ‘swarm’ (see a possible cognate in 8:21[17]) of folk who joined the Israelites, people who were impressed by the defeat of Egypt, who came to faith, or who just wanted to escape Egypt (maybe slaves or descendants of the Hyksos). The expression prepares for later references to riffraff who came along.”

In this context of cultivating a fear of the Lord that is a conviction to act in accordance with his word I begin to see a purpose for hardening Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 14:1-4 NET).

The Lord spoke to Moses: “Tell the Israelites that they must turn and camp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea; you are to camp by the sea before Baal Zephon opposite it.  Pharaoh will think regarding the Israelites, ‘They are wandering around confused in the land – the desert has closed in on them.’  I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will chase after them.  I will gain honor because of Pharaoh and because of all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.”  So this is what they did.

It happened as the Lord promised Moses (Exodus 14:5-7 NET):

When it was reported to the king of Egypt that the people had fled, the heart of Pharaoh and his servants was turned against the people, and the king and his servants said, “What in the world have we done?  For we have released the people of Israel from serving us!”  Then he prepared his chariots and took his army with him.  He took six hundred select chariots, and all the rest of the chariots of Egypt, and officers on all of them.

If I am correct in seeing this fear that is a conviction to act in accordance with the word of the Lord as the functional equivalent in the Old Testament of the fruit of the Spirit,[5] the desire and the effort brought forth by God for the sake of his good pleasure,[6]  because it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy,[7]  and the love of God[8] that is the fulfillment of the law,[9] then the contemporary Gentile response to the events of Exodus is telling.  It is a clear revelation of the ασεβεια[10] in human hearts, the ungodliness (ἀσέβειαν, a form of ἀσέβεια) and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness;[11] namely, the learned consensus that the Exodus didn’t happen as described in the Bible.  It is difficult to believe that God would do such things for anyone (the descendents of Israel), let alone for everyone (For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[12]).

But orchestrating the events to cultivate such a fear could have the opposite effect, creating a fear that caused Israel to flee, in their hearts if not with their feet (Exodus 14:10-12 NET).

When Pharaoh got closer, the Israelites looked up, and there were the Egyptians marching after them, and they were terrified (yârêʼ).[13]  The Israelites cried out to the Lord, and they said to Moses, “Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the desert?  What in the world have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt?  Isn’t this what we told you in Egypt, ‘Leave us alone so that we can serve the Egyptians, because it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!’”

The rabbis who translated the Septuagint used ἐφοβήθησαν (a form of φοβέω)[14] here.  The next occurrence of ἐφοβήθησαν in the New Testament is in Matthew’s Gospel when Christ, our Passover lamb, [was] sacrificed.[15]  Now from noon until three, darkness came over all the land.  At about three o’clock Jesus shouted [the opening line of Psalm 22] with a loud voice…“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[16]  Apparently some bystanders didn’t know Aramaic (the language of Judah’s Babylonian/Persian captors and didn’t recognize the Psalm in that ancient tongue: Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? [8/19/2017: For a different take on this see, DID THE MESSIAH SPEAK ARAMAIC OR HEBREW? (PART 2) BY E.A.KNAPP]).  They said, This man is calling for Elijah[17] (e.g., Eli, Eli—My God, My God).  Leave him alone!  Let’s see if Elijah will come to save him.[18]

Then Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and gave up his spirit.  Just then the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom.  The earth shook and the rocks were split apart.  And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised….Now when the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and what took place, they were extremely terrified (ἐφοβήθησαν, a form of φοβέω) and said, “Truly this one was God’s Son!”[19]

I doubt that the Centurion and his companions on Golgotha saw the curtain that separated the holy place from the most holy place ripped, though they may have seen or at least heard the commotion afterward.  I assume they witnessed the earthquake and the tombs opening.  Whether they saw any of the dead come out of their tombs depends on how limiting verse 53 is meant to be taken, They came out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.[20]  I’m not sure I can make that kind of determination based only on ἐκ,[21] which can mean out of or away from.  But whatever they saw and heard frightened them like the Israelites were frightened when they looked up, and there were the Egyptians marching after them.

But Moses, who was privy to God’s plan, said, Do not fear (yârêʼ)!  Stand firm and see the salvation of the Lord that he will provide for you today; for the Egyptians that you see today you will never, ever see again.[22]  The word translated fear above was θαρσεῖτε (a form of θαρσέω)[23] in the Septuagint.  When Jesus’ disciples saw him walking on the water they were terrified and said, “It’s a ghost!” and cried out with fear.  But immediately Jesus spoke to them: “Have courage (θαρσεῖτε)!  It is I.  Do not be afraid.”[24]

Israel crossed the sea on dry ground.  The Egyptians were drowned when they attempted to follow.  When Israel saw the great power that the Lord had exercised over the Egyptians, they feared (yârêʼ) the Lord, and they believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses.[25]  And so, for the moment, God had successfully cultivated that combination of faith and fear that is the functional equivalent of: if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved,[26] and the fruit of the Spirit,[27] the desire and the effort brought forth by God for the sake of his good pleasure,[28]  because it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy,[29]  and the love of God[30] that is the fulfillment of the law.[31]

[1] Exodus 12:29 (NET)

[2] Exodus 12:23 (NET)

[3] Exodus 12:30-32 (NET)

[4] Exodus 12:37b, 38 (NET)

[6] Philippians 2:13 (NET)

[7] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[11] Romans 1:18 (NET)

[12] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[15] 1 Corinthians 5:7b (NET) Table

[16] Matthew 27:45, 46 (NET) Table

[17] Matthew 27:47 (NET)

[18] Matthew 27:49 (NET)

[19] Matthew 27:50-52, 54 (NET)

[20] Matthew 27:53 (NET)

[22] Exodus 14:13 (NET)

[24] Matthew 14:26, 27 (NET)

[25] Exodus 14:31 (NET) There are no more occurrences of ἐφοβήθη (the word the rabbis chose in the Septuagint) in the New Testament.

[26] Romans 10:9 (NET)

[28] Philippians 2:13 (NET)

[29] Romans 9:16 (NET)