Tag Archives: Galatians 5:4

Forgiven or Passed Over? Part 5

Posted on by

If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord (ʼădônây, אדני), Moses said, let my Lord (ʼădônây, אדני) go among us, for we are a stiff-necked people; pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.[1]

Before I continue to study nâśâʼ[2] and ʽâbar in Exodus 20:7 – Deuteronomy 4:26, I must add another word to the mix.  The Hebrew word sâlach (וסלחת), translated pardon, was unprecedented.  It didn’t occur in Genesis or anywhere else in Exodus.  That the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) called to Moses and spoke to him from the Meeting Tent[3] is fairly explicit in the opening verse of Leviticus.  But I still speculate that at least some of the subject matter recorded there was broached on the mountain before yehôvâh and Moses were so rudely interrupted by Israel’s worship of a golden calf.

The idea that Moses coined a word and then discovered a universe to revolve around it seems to work out all right in particle physics, but it makes me uncomfortable in Bible study.  If yehôvâh had already begun to reveal the elaborate, sometimes tedious, detail of atonement (kâphar, כפר) and forgiveness (sâlach, סלח) it would help to account for Moses’ brass: He called yehôvâh’s intention to destroy Israel in accordance with the forty day covenant evil (Exodus 32:9-14) because he was taken by surprise at the abrupt change in yehôvâh’s tone and the content of his words.

Be that as it may, scribing kâphar and sâlach convinced me that I have mischaracterized Leviticus, and that I was wrong when I wrote that a primary verb to forgive was absent from “holy Hebrew.”  A table showing the translations of sâlach in the KJV, NET and Septuagint follows:

Form of sâlach

 Reference KJV NET

Septuagint
סלח Numbers 14:19 Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people… Please forgive the iniquity of this people… ἄφες, a form of ἀφίημι
יסלח Numbers 30:5 …and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father… And the Lord will release her from it, because her father overruled… καθαριεῖ, a form of καθαρίζω
Numbers 30:8 …and the LORD shall forgive her. And the Lord will release her from it.
Numbers 30:12 …and the LORD shall forgive her. …and the Lord will release her from them. καθαρίσει, another form of καθαρίζω
סלחתי Numbers 14:20 I have pardoned according to thy word: I have forgiven them as you asked. ἵλεως[4]
וסלחת Exodus 34:9 …and pardon our iniquity and our sin… …pardon our iniquity and our sin… ἀφελεῖς, a form of ἀφαιρέω
ונסלח Leviticus 4:20 …make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. …make atonement on their behalf and they will be forgiven. ἀφεθήσεται, another form of ἀφίημι
Leviticus 4:26 …make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him. …make atonement on his behalf for his sin and he will be forgiven.
Leviticus 4:31 …make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. …make atonement on his behalf and he will be forgiven.
Leviticus 4:35 …his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him. …his sin which he has committed and he will be forgiven.
Leviticus 5:10 …his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him. …his sin which he has committed, and he will be forgiven.
Leviticus 5:13 …in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: …by doing one of these things, and he will be forgiven.
Leviticus 5:16 …with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him. …with the guilt offering ram and he will be forgiven.
Leviticus 5:18 …and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. …(although he himself had not known it) and he will be forgiven.
Leviticus 6:7 …for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him… …on his behalf before the Lord and he will be forgiven…
Leviticus 19:22 …and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. …his sin that he has committed, and he will be forgiven…
Numbers 15:25 …the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them… …for the whole community of the Israelites, and they will be forgiven…
Numbers 15:26 And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel… …and the resident foreigner who lives among them will be forgiven…
Numbers 15:28 …to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. …to make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven. Not Translated

I thought Leviticus was law: crime, especially capital crime, and punishment.  But Leviticus has much to say about atonement and forgiveness.  It is the good news (εὐαγγέλιον) of the five books of Moses:

If the whole congregation of Israel strays unintentionally and the matter is not noticed by the assembly, and they violate one of the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) commandments, which must not be violated, so they become guilty, the assembly must present a young bull for a sin offering when the sin they have committed becomes known.[5]  Some priestcraft was spelled out (Leviticus 4:14b-20a) with the result that the priest will make atonement on their behalf and they will be forgiven (sâlach, ונסלח; Septuagint: ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).[6]  For this reason I tell you, Jesus said, people will be forgiven (ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι) for every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven (ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).[7]

Whenever a leader, by straying unintentionally, sins and violates one of the commandments of the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) his God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהיו) which must not be violated, and he pleads guilty, or his sin that he committed is made known to him, he must bring a flawless male goat as his offering.[8]  Again, after some priestcraft (Leviticus 4:24-26a) the priest will make atonement on his behalf for his sin and he will be forgiven (sâlach, ונסלח; Septuagint: ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).[9]  Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, Jesus continued, will be forgiven (ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).  But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι), either in this age or in the age to come.[10]

If an ordinary individual sins by straying unintentionally when he violates one of the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) commandments which must not be violated, and he pleads guilty or his sin that he committed is made known to him, he must bring a flawless female goat as his offering for the sin that he committed.[11]  There was some priestcraft (Leviticus 4:29-31a) and the priest will make atonement on his behalf and he will be forgiven (sâlach, ונסלח; Septuagint: ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).[12]  I tell you the truth, Jesus said, people will be forgiven (ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι) for all sins, even all the blasphemies they utter.  But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven (ἄφεσιν, a form of ἄφεσις), but is guilty of an eternal sin” (because they said, “He has an unclean spirit”).[13]

This same ordinary individual may bring a sheep instead: But if he brings a sheep as his offering, for a sin offering, he must bring a flawless female.[14]  After the priestcraft (Leviticus 4:33-35a) the priest will make atonement on his behalf for his sin which he has committed and he will be forgiven (sâlach, ונסלח; Septuagint: ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).[15]  And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, Jesus said, will be forgiven (ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι), but the person who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).[16]

If a person fails to testify and he is a witness,[17] touches anything ceremonially unclean,[18] touches human uncleanness,[19] or swears an oath, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips,[20] when an individual becomes guilty with regard to one of these things he must confess how he has sinned [Table], and he must bring his penalty for guilt to the Lord (yehôvâh, ליהוה) for his sin that he has committed, a female from the flock, whether a female sheep or a female goat, for a sin offering [Table].[21]  If he cannot afford an animal from the flock, he must bring his penalty for guilt for his sin that he has committed, two turtledoves or two young pigeons, to the Lord (yehôvâh, ליהוה), one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering.[22]  After the priestcraft (Leviticus 5:8-10a) the priest will make atonement on behalf of this person for his sin which he has committed, and he will be forgiven (sâlach, ונסלח; Septuagint: ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).[23]

If he cannot afford two turtledoves or two young pigeons, yehôvâh continued, he must bring as his offering for his sin which he has committed a tenth of an ephah of choice wheat flour for a sin offering. He must not place olive oil on it and he must not put frankincense on it, because it is a sin offering.[24]  So the priest will make atonement on his behalf for his sin which he has committed by doing one of these things, and he will be forgiven (sâlach, ונסלח; Septuagint: ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).[25]  Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, Peter said to a believing magician who had attempted to buy the Holy Spirit, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive (ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι) you for the intent of your heart.[26]

The Lord’s holy things (Leviticus 5:14-16 NET):

Then the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) spoke to Moses: “When a person commits a trespass and sins by straying unintentionally from the regulations about the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) holy things (qôdesh, מקדשי; Septuagint: ἁγίων, a form of ἅγιος), then he must bring his penalty for guilt to the Lord (yehôvâh, ליהוה), a flawless ram from the flock, convertible into silver shekels according to the standard of the sanctuary shekel, for a guilt offering.  And whatever holy thing he violated he must restore and must add one fifth to it and give it to the priest.  So the priest will make atonement on his behalf with the guilt offering ram and he will be forgiven (sâlach, ונסלח; Septuagint: ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).”

If a person sins and violates any of the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) commandments which must not be violated (although he did not know it at the time, but later realizes he is guilty), then he will bear his punishment for iniquity and must bring a flawless ram from the flock, convertible into silver shekels, for a guilt offering to the priest.  So the priest will make atonement on his behalf for his error which he committed (although he himself had not known it) and he will be forgiven (sâlach, ונסלח; Septuagint: ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).[27]

Then the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) spoke to Moses (Leviticus 6:1-7 NET):

“When a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord (yehôvâh, ביהוה) by deceiving his fellow citizen in regard to something held in trust, or a pledge, or something stolen, or by extorting something from his fellow citizen, or has found something lost and denies it and swears falsely concerning any one of the things that someone might do to sin – when it happens that he sins and he is found guilty, then he must return whatever he had stolen, or whatever he had extorted, or the thing that he had held in trust, or the lost thing that he had found, or anything about which he swears falsely.  He must restore it in full and add one fifth to it; he must give it to its owner when he is found guilty.  Then he must bring his guilt offering to the Lord (yehôvâh, ליהוה), a flawless ram from the flock, convertible into silver shekels, for a guilt offering to the priest.  So the priest will make atonement on his behalf before the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) and he will be forgiven (sâlach, ונסלח; Septuagint: ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι) for whatever he has done to become guilty.”

When a man has sexual intercourse with a woman, although she is a slave woman designated for another man and she has not yet been ransomed, or freedom has not been granted to her, there will be an obligation to pay compensation.  They must not be put to death, because she was not free.  He must bring his guilt offering to the Lord (yehôvâh, ליהוה) at the entrance of the Meeting Tent, a guilt offering ram, and the priest is to make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) for his sin that he has committed, and he will be forgiven (sâlach, ונסלח; Septuagint: ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι) of his sin that he has committed.[28]

James wrote (James 5:14-16a NET):

Is anyone among you ill?  He should summon the elders of the church, and they should pray for him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.  And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick and the Lord will raise him up – and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven (ἀφεθήσεται, a form of ἀφίημι).  So confess (ἐξομολογεῖσθε, a form of ἐξομολογέω) your sins to one another and pray for one another so that you may be healed.

I saved this quotation[29] for last to highlight that all of this priestly machinery of atonement and forgiveness ground to a halt if sinners didn’t acknowledge and confess their sin, whether directly or by bringing the appropriate offering.  This is extremely difficult for the religious mind to do, those who are trying to be declared righteous by the law[30] or attempting to have [their] own righteousness derived from the law.[31]  As I began these studies I wrote that “the religious mind may be nothing more than a subspecies of the carnal mind (KJV) or the outlook of the flesh (NET).”  Now I would simply say that what I call the religious mind is the carnal mind or the outlook of the flesh: because the religious mind is hostile to God, for it does not submit (ὑποτάσσεται, a form of ὑποτάσσω) to the law of God, nor is it able (δύναται, a form of δύναμαι) to do so.[32]

Jephthah sacrificed[33] his daughter to make his own word true rather than confess his reckless oath to keep yehôvâh’s commandments.  But first submission to the law of God is never a pretty sight.  Paul left a vivid description from his own experience of what it is like to die to the law, to have a new self, a new I, a place from which to gain one’s first glimpse of the old self, the carnal mind, the outlook of the flesh or as I have been calling it—the religious mind (Romans 7:15-24 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 (σύμφημι) that the law is good.  But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me.  For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh.  For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it (NET note 24: Grk “For to wish [want] is present in/with me, but not to do it.”).  For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil 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 good, evil is present with me.  For I delight in the law of God in my inner being.  But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members.  Wretched man that I am!  Who will rescue me from this body of death?

[1] Exodus 34:9 (NET)

[2] I used the second spelling (nâsâh) offered in Strong’s Concordance in the tables and a previous essay, which confused me when I linked to the Hebrew dictionary.

[3] Leviticus 1:1 (NET)

[4] “I am merciful to them according to your word” (Numbers 14:20b NETS).

[5] Leviticus 4:13, 14a (NET)

[6] Leviticus 4:20b (NET)

[7] Matthew 12:31 (NET) Table

[8] Leviticus 4:22, 23 (NET) Table1 Table2

[9] Leviticus 4:26b (NET)

[10] Matthew 12:32 (NET)

[11] Leviticus 4:27, 28 (NET)

[12] Leviticus 4:31b (NET)

[13] Mark 3:28-30 (NET)

[14] Leviticus 4:32 (NET)

[15] Leviticus 4:35b (NET)

[16] Luke 12:10 (NET)

[17] Leviticus 5:1 (NET)

[18] Leviticus 5:2 (NET)

[19] Leviticus 5:3 (NET)

[20] Leviticus 5:4 (NET) Table

[21] Leviticus 5:5, 6a (NET)

[22] Leviticus 5:7 (NET) Table

[23] Leviticus 5:10b (NET) Table

[24] Leviticus 5:11 (NET) Table

[25] Leviticus 5:13a (NET) Table

[26] Acts 8:22 (NET)

[27] Leviticus 5:17, 18 (NET)

[28] Leviticus 19:20-22 (NET)

[29] There are three more occurrences of ἀφεθήσεται in Luke 17:34-36 (KJV) translated left, contrasted to παραλημφθήσεται (a form of παραλαμβάνω) translated taken.  Verse 36 was not in the Textus Receptus of 1550 or the Byzantine Majority Text I consult most often.  It was however in the Textus Receptus of 1598 and thereafter and also in the Essex Gospels of 1175.

[30] Galatians 5:4 (NET) Table

[31] Philippians 3:9 (NET)

[32] Romans 8:7 (NET)

[33] In an article titled, “Did Jephthah Actually Kill his Daughter?,” on thetorah.com  Professor Jonathan Magonet argued: “The flexibility of the vav conjunctive linking the two statements would allow it to be read here as ‘and’, so that ‘belonging to the Lord’ meant the burnt offering mentioned immediately after.  But the ‘vav’ could also be read as ‘or’, so that whatever or whoever came out would be dedicated to God, and, only should it prove appropriate, would be sacrificed.”  Whether Jephthah “sacrificed” his daughter as a burnt offering or as a lifelong virgin matters very little to my argument here.  It would have mattered a great deal to the hold Jephthah’s “sacrifice” had on my attention, how often I returned to consider this story.  It’s hard to say if that alone would have left my religious mind skulking in the shadows.

My Deeds, Part 1

Posted on by

In another essay I contrasted 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and Revelation 2:26-29.  I’ve wanted to return to the latter for a while.  Here is a table representing my unstudied view of the relationship of its clauses in English.

Revelation 2:26-29 (NET)
And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end,

I will give him authority over the nations –
he will rule them with an iron rod and like clay jars he will break them to pieces,
just as I have received the right to rule from my Father – and I will give him the morning star.

The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

To begin I’ll consider who continues in my deeds until the end, because it tugs the hardest at me to return to my own works.  As the title of this essay suggests my goal is to understand what Jesus meant by τὰ ἔργα μου, translated my deeds.  But first I’ll look into τηρῶν (a form of τηρέω), translated who continues.

The most basic understanding of τηρῶν is: Blessed is the one who stays alert and does not lose (τηρῶν, a form of τηρέω) his clothes so that he will not have to walk around naked and his shameful condition be seen.[1]  It means to keep, not to lose or discard.  He who has My commandments and keeps (τηρῶν, a form of τηρέω) them, Jesus said, is the one who loves Me.[2]

In another essay I described shacking-up “with my girlfriend du jour” as a time when “I began to walk in the grace of Christ’s salvation.”  Of course, I shacked up with my girlfriend because I was trying to believe that Christ put an “end” to the law and all things were “lawful” for me.  In other words, I was attempting to lose or discard Jesus’ commandments (ignoring for the moment that the main “commandment” at issue in my mind was the suspect “sin of premarital sex”).

Jesus wasn’t perplexed by my conundrum.  Suddenly I was filled with desire to write a rock opera about Him.  I became immersed in the words of the four Gospel narratives.  Among those words was: He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me.  Though I read the word keeps, I heard the word obeys.  I thought keeps meant obeys at that time: The person who has my commandments and obeys (τηρῶν, a form of τηρέω) them is the one who loves me.[3]

So when I married my roommate, though I had certainly fallen away from grace since I was trying to be declared righteous by the law,[4] I was done for the moment with my attempt to lose or discard Jesus’ commandments.  I can’t say I was obeying them.  Obedience apart from grace is hypocrisy, an actor playing at righteousness.

The Circle in the movie of the same name is a religious cult/high-tech company.  There are many spoilers here.  During a weekly worship service called Dream Friday tech evangelist Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks), one of the founders, introduces a new low-cost, wireless, internet-enabled camera to the faithful, called Circlers.  These cameras, connected to The Circle, are being placed all over the world.  “There needs to be accountability,” Eamon preaches.  “Tyrants and terrorists can no longer hide.  We will see them.  We will hear them.  We will hear and see everything.  If it happens, we’ll know.  We’re calling it SeeChange.”

A new employee Mae Holland (Emma Watson) sits in the congregation drinking the Kool-Aid (as she admits to another Circler later in the film).  “We will see it all because knowing is good,” Eamon proclaims, “but knowing everything is better.”

“We need accountability.  We need openness,” Tom Stenton (Patton Oswalt), COO of The Circle, concurs as he introduces Congresswoman Olivia Santos (Judy Reyes) at another worship service.  “I intend to show exactly how democracy can and should be,” Congresswoman Santos thrills Tom’s congregation.  “Starting today, my every meeting, my every phone call and email will be accessible to my constituents and to the world in real time.”

“Hello, democracy!  Open and accountable!” Tom seals the deal.

One night SeaChange cameras and monitoring help save Mae’s life after a misguided kayaking accident.  Tom and Eamon counsel her after the incident.  “I am a believer in the perfectibility of human beings,” Eamon admits.  “When we are our best selves, the possibilities are endless.  There isn’t a problem that we cannot solve.  We can cure any disease, and we can end hunger.”  Mae is a repentant convert.  “Without secrets,” Eamon concludes, “without the hoarding of knowledge and information, we can finally realize our potential.”

“I committed a crime” Mae confesses before the Circlers.  “I borrowed a kayak without the owner’s knowledge, paddled out to the middle of the bay and I wasn’t wearing a life jacket.”

“So, Mae,” Eamon asks, “do you think you behave better or worse when you are being watched?”

“Better.  Without a doubt.”

“What happens when you’re alone and unobserved?”

“Well, for starters, I steal kayaks.  Seriously, I do things I don’t wanna do.  I lie…secrets are lies.  Secrets are what make crimes possible.  We behave worse when we’re not accountable.  I was my worst self because I didn’t think anyone was watching.  I thought that I was alone…Knowledge is a basic human right.  Access to all possible human experience is a basic human right…From now on I’ll be wearing a modified SeeChange camera at all times.  I’m going fully transparent.”

My personal logline for The Circle is “Cyber-bullying with a great warm smile.”  But the attempt to drive a preachy plot with a series of worship services didn’t fare any better for a mainstream movie than it does for a Christian film.  And when Tom and Eamon bully Mae in front of the congregation into becoming complicit in her friend’s accidental death, she doesn’t rise up and race against the clock and certain death to consume The Circle in slow-motion fireballs.  The Circle is not presented as evil through Mae’s eyes but as a necessary good.

From the beginning she believed that the needs of society and the needs of the individual are the same.  “When someone dies in a plane crash,” she explains to her disbelieving parents, clinging desperately to their sick old ideas of personal privacy, “you don’t abandon planes.  You make them safer.”  And with the self-assurance that “I’m the only one who can do this,” Mae flips the script on Eamon and Tom, becomes high priestess of the cult and leads the Circlers into the light.

Still, I enjoyed the film’s depiction of the religious mind in a non-theistic context.  And it was a welcome reminder that forced righteousness under an ever-watchful eye is not the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.[5]  The table below contrasts the NASB and NET translations of John 14:21.

NASB

NET
He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him. The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me.  The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him.

Though keeps may be a lower standard than obeys, the flow here is still fairly clear and appears that there is something one must do before Jesus will disclose or will reveal Himself to that person, not to mention love.  I looked into ἐμφανίσω (a form of ἐμφανίζω) the Greek word translated will disclose and will reveal.  It only occurred this once, so I made a table of all the forms of ἐμφανίζω.

Form of ἐμφανίζω Reference KJV

NET
ἐμφανίσατε Acts 23:15 …ye with the council signify to the chief captain… …you and the council request the commanding officer…
ἐμφανίσω John 14:21 …I will love him, and will manifest myself to him… …I will love him and will reveal myself to him.
ἐμφανισθῆναι Hebrews 9:24 …to appear in the presence of God for us… …and he appears now in God’s presence for us.
ἐμφανίζειν John 14:22 …thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? …you are going to reveal yourself to us and not to the world?
ἐμφανίζουσιν Hebrews 11:14 …they that say such things declare plainly… …those who speak in such a way make it clear…
ἐνεφάνισαν Acts 24:1 …who informed the governor against Paul. …they brought formal charges against Paul to the governor.
Acts 25:2 Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him… So the chief priests and the most prominent men of the Jews brought formal charges against Paul to him.
Acts 25:15 …the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me… …the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me about him…
ἐνεφάνισας Acts 23:22 See thou tell no man that thou hast showed these things to me. Tell no one that you have reported these things to me.
ἐνεφανίσθησαν Matthew 27:53 …and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. …and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

The most basic meaning is to appear in person (Hebrews 9:24; Matthew 27:53).  And that sense was certainly true in John 14:21 and 22:  After his resurrection Jesus appeared (ἐφανερώθη, a form of φανερόω) in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country.[6]  Then he appeared (ἐφανερώθη, a form of φανερόω) to the eleven themselves, while they were eating…[7]  After this Jesus revealed (ἐφανέρωσεν, another form of φανερόω) himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias.[8]  This was now the third time Jesus was revealed (ἐφανερώθη, a form of φανερόω) to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.[9]  But not once did He reveal Himself in person to Ananias, Caiaphas, the Pharisees (other than Saul) or the experts in the law after his resurrection.

“Lord, what then has happened” Judas (not Iscariot) asked, “that You are going to disclose (ἐμφανίζειν, another form of ἐμφανίζω) Yourself to us and not to the world?”  Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me [e.g., if anyone has My commandments and keeps them], he will keep (τηρήσει, another form of τηρέω) My word (λόγον, a form of λόγος); and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.  He who does not love Me [e.g., does not have or keep My commandments] does not keep (τηρεῖ, another form of τηρέω) My words (λόγους, another form of λόγος); and the word (λόγος) which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.[10]

I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, Jesus said.  But you want to kill me, because my teaching (λόγος) makes no progress among you[11] (NASB: My word has no place in you).  And, Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition…Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.[12]  In other words, they did not keep his word or his commandments and He did not disclose or reveal Himself to them by a personal appearance after his resurrection.

There are five other occurrences (Acts 23:15, 22; 24:1; 25:2, 15) of forms of ἐμφανίζω which included personal appearance but the communication of certain information was also of key importance.  I’ll highlight two of them because they remind me of my own experience studying the Bible.

The chief priests and the most prominent men of the Jews brought formal charges (ἐνεφάνισαν, another form of ἐμφανίζω) against Paul to[13] Festus, the Roman governor.  Describing those charges Festus said (Acts 25:15-19 NET):

When I was in Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed (ἐνεφάνισαν, another form of ἐμφανίζω) me about [Paul], asking for a sentence of condemnation against him.  I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to hand over anyone before the accused had met his accusers face to face and had been given an opportunity to make a defense against the accusation.  So after they came back here with me, I did not postpone the case, but the next day I sat on the judgment seat and ordered the man to be brought.  When his accusers stood up, they did not charge him with any of the evil deeds (πονηρῶν, a form of πονηρός) I had suspected.  Rather they had several points of disagreement with him about their own religion (δεισιδαιμονίας, a form of δεισιδαιμονία) and about a man named Jesus who was dead, whom Paul claimed to be alive.

In Jerusalem the information Festus received from the chief priests and the elders of the Jews formed an image in his mind based largely on his own knowledge and experience—the evil deeds I had suspected.  On further examination at trial in Caesarea Festus’ erroneous ideas were corrected—they had several points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a man named Jesus who was dead, whom Paul claimed to be alive.  Though Festus received more information and even some more clarity about Paul’s situation, he acknowledged: I was at a loss how I could investigate these matters…[14]  My point here is that the information, and understanding the information presented, had taken precedence over the personal appearance aspects of ἐμφανίζω.

Finally, one occurrence of a form of ἐμφανίζω referenced people of the past, known only through Scripture: These all died in faith without receiving the things promised, but they saw them in the distance and welcomed them and acknowledged that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth.  For those who speak [e.g., through words recorded in the Bible] in such a way make it clear (ἐμφανίζουσιν, another form of ἐμφανίζω) that they are seeking a homeland.[15]  And it is in this way that I think Jesus’ words have meaning for me here and now.  He will disclose or will reveal Himself to me through Scripture if I love Him, which means if I have his commandments and keep them.

So why was I filled with desire to write a rock opera about Jesus even as I attempted to lose or discard his commandments?  Why wasn’t I filled with desire to write a rock opera about Aleister Crowley?  I certainly knew of him.  No one gets very deep into rock music without hearing about its patron saint. “Harm None, Do as You Will” was much closer to my mantra at that moment than anything Jesus had said.

Before Jesus said—He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me—He said—If you love Me, you will keep (τηρήσετε, another form of τηρέω) My commandments.[16]  Then[17] he introduced the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 17 NASB).

I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

If I remember that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control,[18] then what Jesus said logically was:

  1. If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
  2. You will love Me (e.g., the fruit of the Spirit).
  3. Therefore, you will keep My commandments.

The simple answer to my question then is that I was filled with desire to write a rock opera about Jesus because his Holy Spirit is alive and well.  Aleister Crowley is dead.  (I’ll ignore for the moment that spirits which may or may not have influenced him are alive still.  They obviously had little or no influence on me.)  But what do I make of Jesus’ other statement?  He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.

The implication here is that if I do not have and keep his commandments He will not disclose Himself to me.  But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, He also said, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.[19]  How do I reconcile these two?

Do not extinguish the Spirit,[20] Paul wrote the Thessalonians without any explanation.  I think I’ve found here one way to extinguish the Spirit (in me, not in anyone else); namely, to lose or discard Jesus’ commandments, whether deliberately by conscious rejection or holding fast instead to the traditions of human religion so that his teaching (λόγος) makes no progress in me.  But if I were to teach others the traditions of human religion that nullify the word of God, though my power would be less than absolute, I might become instrumental in extinguishing the Spirit in them as well. 

I’ll pick this up in another essay.

[1] Revelation 16:15b (NET)

[2] John 14:21a (NASB)

[3] John 14:21a (NET)

[4] Galatians 5:4 (NET) Table

[5] Romans 3:22a (NET)

[6] Mark 16:12 (NET)

[7] Mark 16:14 (NET)

[8] John 21:1a (NET)

[9] John 21:14 (NET)

[10] John 14:22-24 (NASB)

[11] John 8:37 (NET)

[12] Mark 7:8, 13a (NET)

[13] Acts 25:2 (NET)

[14] Acts 25:20a (NET)

[15] Hebrews 11:13, 14 (NET)

[16] John 14:15 (NASB)

[17] By adding then to the text the NET translators have made it seem as if Jesus said, If you love me and you keep my commandments then I will ask the Father…   This then however does not make the second clause logically dependent on the first two.  It is simply an irregular translation of (καγὼ, a form of κἀγώ) and means no more than Jesus said this then He said that as they acknowledge in a footnote 36.

[18] Galatians 5:23, 24a (NET)

[19] John 14:26 (NASB)

[20] 1 Thessalonians 5:19 (NET)

Romans, Part 31

Posted on by

So then, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation (ὀφειλέται, a form of ὀφειλέτης),[1] not to the flesh (σαρκὶ, a form of σάρξ),[2] to live according to the flesh (σάρκα, another form of σάρξ), Paul continued, (for if you live according to the flesh [σάρκα, another form of σάρξ], you will die [ἀποθνῄσκειν, a form of ἀποθνήσκω][3])…[4]  If I consider myself the old man, the sin condemned in the flesh,[5] I will die along with the flesh.  This truism is equivalent to Jesus’ saying to Martha, The one who believes in me will live even if he dies (ἀποθάνῃ, another form of ἀποθνήσκω),[6] or to his disciples, The one who loves his life [i.e., in this world] destroys [or, loses] it.[7]  But no, I didn’t see that for a long time.

I thought Paul was threatening me with eternal damnation if I lived according to the flesh, even though the text said die.  I wasn’t happy about it, especially after everything else he had said, but I couldn’t make any other sense of it at the time.  And yes, it is embarrassing to keep admitting how stubbornly dull-witted I am.

Paul continued, but if by the Spirit you put to death (θανατοῦτε, a form of θανατόω)[8] the deeds (πράξεις, a form of πρᾶξις)[9] of the body you will live.[10]  If I identify with the new man created in the image of God, I will live.  But no, I didn’t see how well this fit with Jesus saying to Martha, and the one who lives and believes in me will never die (ἀποθάνῃ, another form of ἀποθνήσκω).[11]  And I didn’t relate it to Jesus saying to his disciples, and the one who hates his life in this world guards [or, keeps] it for eternal life.[12]

I thought it was best, if I wanted to go to heaven, to keep trying to put the deeds of my body to death by striving to keep the law, or at least by striving to love by keeping the definition of the love that fulfills the law as if it were laws.  The idea that I could put to death the deeds of the body by faith, by believing that my old man was crucified with [Christ] so that the body of sin would no longer dominate [me], so that [I] would no longer be enslaved to sin,[13] because God achieved what the law could not do…By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh…so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit,[14] was a slow train coming.

For all who are led (ἄγονται, a form of ἄγω)[15] by the Spirit of God are the sons of God,[16] Paul continued.  Surely I am a byword in heaven.  Over and over I was led back to these verses, and over and over I refused to drink them in.  But let me recount the word ἄγω as used in the Gospels as a contrast to my Do-It-Yourself religion.

And you will be brought (ἀχθήσεσθε, another form of ἄγω) before governors and kings because of me, as a witness to them and the Gentiles,[17] Jesus told his disciples.  When they arrest (ἄγωσιν, another form of ἄγω) you and hand you over for trial, do not worry about what to speak. But say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.[18]  Go to the village ahead of you, Jesus said.  Right away you will find a donkey tied there, and a colt with her.  Untie them and bring (ἀγάγετε, another form of ἄγω) them to me.[19]  They brought (ἤγαγον, another form of ἄγω) the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.[20]  Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River and was led (ἤγετο, another form of ἄγω) by the Spirit in the wilderness, where for forty days he endured temptations from the devil.[21]

So here I have Jesus ἤγετο (another form of ἄγω) by the Holy Spirit, and handed over to the devil: Then the devil brought (῎Ηγαγεν, another form of ἄγω) him to Jerusalem, had him stand on the highest point of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here…”[22]  An angry mob got up, forced [Jesus] out of the town, and brought (ἤγαγον, another form of ἄγω) him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.[23]  A mob of duly authorized law enforcement types arrested Jesus, led (ἤγαγον, another form of ἄγω) him away, and brought him into the high priest’s house.[24]   Then the whole group of them rose up and brought (ἤγαγον, another form of ἄγω) Jesus before Pilate.[25]  Two other criminals were also led away (῎Ηγοντο, another form of ἄγω) to be executed with him.[26]

Now I look back at the meaning and usage of ἄγω and ask myself incredulously, “Just exactly what part of being led (ἄγονται, a form of ἄγω) by the Spirit did you think was your doing, Dan?”  But I’m not alone, though I might wish that I were.  I want to take the movie “Courageous” as my point of departure here.

Actually, a big part of me doesn’t want to do that at all.  As an independent filmmaker wannabe I have nothing but admiration for what the Kendrick brothers and Sherwood Baptist Church have done.  I can watch their movies without being embarrassed by the quality of the filmmaking, and each film gets better on that score than the one before.  I didn’t feel anything I’m about to say while watching the film (and I watched “Courageous” again last night).  What I feel is comfort, familiarity and a warm nostalgia for the religion of my childhood, my youth and beyond.  I like stirring music.  I want to be courageous, too.  That’s part of my problem, that I only see a problem in retrospect when I analyze the story in the light of the Gospel and the religious mind.

The storyline of “Courageous,” for those who haven’t seen it, is about a father Adam after his daughter Emily dies in a car crash.  She was his favorite, though he was almost as detached from her as from his son, concerned about his work and his appearance to others.  After her death he is concerned that he should have been a better father.  His wife reminds him that he is still a father.  He talks to his Pastor.  He studies the Bible.  He begins to make a rapprochement with his son.  So far so good.

Then he drafts a resolution, a list of rules derived from his Bible study about fatherhood.  He passes it out to his friends.  Most of them, interestingly enough, are other policemen.  He asks these policemen to hold him accountable to his list of rules.  They want to sign it, too.  Eventually, all the men join in a ceremony, effectively swearing an oath to abide by Adam’s rules.  It is all very moving, and courageous.  But Adam, a churchgoing man, was ashamed of the Gospel for exactly the same reason that Paul was not.

Paul was not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes,[27] because the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”[28]  Anyone might become dissatisfied with the righteousness of God that is showing through him and out into the world at any given moment.  It is an excellent time to return to Christ, to be joined to the one who was raised from the dead, like a wife seeking to enlarge her family comes to her husband, to bear fruit to God.[29]  It is not a time to attempt to have one’s own righteousness derived from the law.[30]  You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace![31]

Instead of rebuking and correcting them privately, Adam’s Pastor praises the men publicly for their resolution and their oath to keep it.  Then Adam is allowed to speak to the entire congregation.  Adam persuades other men to follow him in his defection from Christ.  I feel this defection deeply when I get away from the movie and its rousing music, Adam’s tear-filled eyes, his upraised arm and his hand grasping for something elusive.  But my anger is restrained for two reasons.

First, I find it extremely interesting that the character’s name is Adam.  For all I know there is a “Courageous 2” in the works where Adam (or Shane, but that’s another story) learns to be led by the Spirit rather than by the flesh.  And secondly, I know how much remedial help I’ve needed in the sense that the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ.[32]  The NET has it, the law had become our guardian until Christ.[33]  Neither word alone is quite right, governess, nanny, just don’t say it.  I think of Creasy, Denzel Washington’s character in “Man on Fire,” taking Pita, Dakota Fanning’s character, to school, guarding her, protecting her, and preparing her to learn.  He became much more than a bodyguard, but not her teacher.  Jesus is the teacher not the law, or living by laws.

Even those born only of the flesh of Adam bind themselves to laws, rules and ethical principles to keep from becoming complete sociopaths.  It doesn’t take a prophet to see that if the Kendrick brothers’ resolution fails to bring those born of the flesh and of the Spirit to Christ, Shariah is waiting in the wings.  But it must be equally clear that the Kendrick brothers’ resolution derived from the Bible is no more the Gospel than Shariah law is.  Both are of the old way, the old written code, and neither is the new life of the Spirit.[34]

Romans, Part 32

The Life 

Back to The Soul

Back to Romans, Part 34

Back to Romans, Part 35

Back to Romans, Part 48

Back to Romans, Part 82

Back to Romans, Part 83

[4] Romans 8:12, 13a (NET)

[5] Romans 8:3 (NET)

[6] John 11:25b (NET)

[7] John 12:25a (NET)

[10] Romans 8:13b (NET)

[11] John 11:26a (NET)

[12] John 12:25b (NET)

[13] Romans 6:6 (NET)

[14] Romans 8:3, 4 (NET)

[16] Romans 8:14 (NET)

[17] Matthew 10:18 (NET)

[18] Mark 13:11 (NET)

[19] Matthew 21:2 (NET)

[20] Matthew 21:7 (NET)

[21] Luke 4:1 (NET)

[22] Luke 4:9 (NET)

[23] Luke 4:29 (NET)

[24] Luke 22:54 (NET)

[25] Luke 23:1 (NET)

[26] Luke 23:32 (NET)

[27] Romans 1:16 (NET)

[28] Romans 1:17 (NET)

[29] Romans 7:4 (NET)

[30] Philippians 3:9 (NET)

[31] Galatians 5:4 (NET) Table

[32] Galatians 3:24 (NKJV)

[33] Galatians 3:24 (NET)

Is Sin Less Than Sin? Part 4

Posted on by

To approach the issue of whether such πορνεία as is not so much as named among the Gentiles1 is of greater consequence than the παραπτώματι (a form of παράπτωμα) addressed in Galatians 6:1 I want to consider Romans 7.  But first I want to remind myself of that most forgotten part of the Gospel, the active ingredient, if you will, of the Gospel as a remedy for sin (Romans 6:3-8 NET).

Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life.   For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection.  We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin (ἁμαρτίας, a form of ἁμαρτία) would no longer dominate (καταργηθῇ, a form of καταργέω) us, so that we would no longer be enslaved (δουλεύειν, a form of δουλεύω) to sin (ἁμαρτίᾳ).  (For someone who has died has been freed [δεδικαίωται, a form of δικαιόω] from sin [ἁμαρτίας, another form of ἁμαρτία].)  Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

Bearing in mind then that this death is one of the gifts of righteousness contained in the Gospel, I want to turn to chapter 7 where Paul contrasted those who through faith in Jesus Christ have become united with him in the likeness of his death to the person whose lord is the law (Romans 7:1 NET):

Or do you not know, brothers and sisters (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is lord over a person as long as he lives?

The word translated lord above is κυριεύει (a form of κυριεύω), to rule in Greek.  “The kings of the Gentiles lord (κυριεύουσιν, another form of κυριεύω) it over them,” Jesus told his disciples (Luke 22:25 NET).  In his letter to the Romans Paul continued with the following metaphor (Romans 7:2-4 NET):

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage.  So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress.  But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to another man, she is not an adulteress.  So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God.

This can seem like a complex mixed metaphor, but I think it’s actually simpler than it first appears.  If I start again with verse 1: the law is lord over a person as long as he lives.  The Greek word translated person is ἀνθρώπου (a form of ἄνθρωπος), humankind.  The metaphor involves ἄνθρωπος as God created us, male and female, ἀνήρ and γυνὴ.  The meaning of the metaphor is that the husband (ἀνήρ) represents the law and the wife (γυνή) represents all humanity (ἄνθρωπος).  In verse 2 then the married woman (ὕπανδρος γυνὴ) is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives like the law is lord over a person (ἀνθρώπου, a form of ἄνθρωπος) as long as he lives.  The word translated married (ὕπανδρος) is a compound of two words: ὑπό meaning under and ἀνδρός (a form of ἀνήρ), man, husband.  So I can see the metaphorical relationship between the wife under a man, ὕπανδρος γυνὴ,and the original state of all humankind (ἄνθρωπος), under law (ὑπό νόμος).2

The sexual overtones are real here and shouldn’t be ignored.  For instance, the word translated joined in Romans 7:3 is a euphemistic usage of γενέσθαι (a form of γίνομαι): If she be taken (made, done) by another man while her husband is still alive…  The same One who inspired Paul to write this metaphor created the hormonal and neuronal responses that make me feel this husband-wife relationship.  He made marriage to communicate something to me about my relationship to Him.  I don’t want to miss this understanding just because it makes me feel a little gay.  I want to know Him, for this is eternal life.3

The second part of verse 2 is where the metaphor seems to become confused: but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage (literally: τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός, the law of her man).  In verse 1 the law is lord over a person as long as he lives, and in verse 4a it was the believer who died not the husband/law.  The solution I think is that in everyday life a woman who dies is obviously released from the law of the marriage but she is not free to be taken (made, done) by another.  That only happens in everyday life if her husband dies.  And to be made free to be taken (made, done) by another was the point of the metaphor.

Since those who believe in Jesus Christ have become united with him in the likeness of his death and in the likeness of his resurrection4 they can both die to the law through the body of Christ and are made free to be taken (made, done) by another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God.5  They are no longer under law, ὑπό νόμος, but under Christ, ὑπό Χριστός.

The ladies have the advantage when it comes to understanding what it means to be ὑπό Χριστός without feeling gay.  But I—who have known the joy and wonder of a wife who even briefly was willingly, happily, contentedly, eagerly and excitedly ὕπανδρος—have the advantage of understanding how discouraging and distressing it must be to the Lord Jesus when I come to Him with rules and regulations rather than willingly, happily, contentedly, eagerly and excitedly.  As I began to grasp the meaning of the metaphor in Romans 7 all my searching the Scripture for rules to obey seemed like a young wife, eager to start her family, studying a sex manual.  Her husband calls out amorously.  “Not now,” she says, “I have to figure out how to bear fruit!”

As I began to add Paul’s understanding in Galatians to this metaphor in Romans 7 I began to see any turning back to the law on my part, any attempt to justify myself by law, or make myself righteous by my efforts to keep laws, like this:  A young wife is eager to start her family.  Her husband calls out amorously, but all he hears is the slamming of the door behind her as she hurries off to hook-up with her ex.  Paul called it fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:4 NET Table).

You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace!

Here I find the meaning of adultery, even of πορνεία, why it is unlawful, why we were made to experience it the way we do.  I can grasp now why it would be as distasteful to God for me to simply walk away from the law—apart from the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ shared as my own—as it would be for a wife to simply walk away from her husband to be taken (made, done) by another.  And it was in the face of this super πορνεία, if you will, against the Lord Jesus Himself that Paul wrote: if a person is discovered in some sin, you who are spiritual restore such a person in a spirit of gentleness.6  In my mind that trumps such πορνεία as is not so much as named among the Gentiles7 and makes Paul’s earlier response to one man’s sin seem disproportionate by comparison.