Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 16

Paul wrote believers in Colossae (Colossians 3:1-6 NET):

Therefore, if you have been raised with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.  Keep thinking about things above, not things on the earth, for you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.  When Christ (who is your life) appears, then you too will be revealed in glory with him.  So put to death whatever in your nature belongs to the earth: sexual immorality, impurity, shameful passion, evil desire, and greed which is idolatry.  Because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.

A note (4) at the end of this passage in the NET reads:

The words ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (…“on the sons of disobedience”) are lacking in Ì46 [correct symbol won’t display] B b sa, but are found in א A C D F G H I Ψ 075 0278 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy bo. The words are omitted by several English translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, TNIV). This textual problem is quite difficult to resolve. On the one hand, the parallel account in Eph 5:6 has these words, thus providing scribes a motive for adding them here. On the other hand, the reading without the words may be too hard: The ἐν οἷς (en hois) of v. 7 seems to have no antecedent without υἱούς already in the text, although it could possibly be construed as neuter referring to the vice list in v. 5. Further, although the witness of B is especially important, there are other places in which B and Ì46 [ditto above] share errant readings of omission. Nevertheless, the strength of the internal evidence against the longer reading is at least sufficient to cause doubt here. The decision to retain the words in the text is less than certain.

Whether the words sons of disobedience were original or not is immaterial to me.  I’m more concerned with δι᾿ ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ (“Because of these things the wrath of God is coming”).  First, ἔρχεται (a form of ἔρχομαι) is present tense; appears or shows itself might be a better translation.  Though because is a possible translation of δι᾿[1] (a form of διά), through would be more common (verse 17) and more in line with Paul’s teaching in the opening of Romans, the wrath of Godrevealed from heaven.  So I would translate it, “through these (e.g., sexual immorality, impurity, shameful passion, evil desire, and greed which is idolatry) the wrath of God appears” or “shows itself.”  In other words, these are the evidence or symptoms of the depraved, unapproved, reprobate or debased mind to which God gave those over who did not like to retain God in their knowledge.[2]

God’s wrath was to give them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.[3]  Paul enumerated what should not be done for believers in Rome (Romans 1:29-32 NET):

They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, 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].  Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

A young mother put it this way on Facebook:

Parent shaming.  Judging.  Close mindedness.  Mass murders.  Hate on Nationalities.  Hate on skin colors.  Hate on LGBT’s.  Hate on parenting.  Hate.  I can honestly say I’m worried to bring my children up in the type of society we’ve become.  What will it take to change?  Will it get better before it gets worse?  I have to believe there’s more love in this world than hate.  Incredibly saddening that my happy, loving boys will one day learn the world is so ugly and destructive.

Even if sons of disobedience wasn’t original I don’t see why ἐν οἷς or ἐν τούτοις are “too hard” of a reading.  Paul’s contrast was to the lives the Colossians lived before they died and [their] life [was] hidden with Christ in God, not to some mysterious others called the sons of disobedience.  Even Ephesians reads διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (for because of these things God’s wrath comes on the sons of disobedience[4]).  But again διὰ could be through, ταῦτα refers back to the person who is immoral, impure, or greedy[5] (probably immorality, impurity or greed) and ἔρχεται is present tense, appears or shows itself.

So I would understand it more like, “For through these [immoral, impure or greedy persons, or immorality, impurity or greed] the wrath of God shows itself upon the sons of disobedience.”  The sons of disobedience are no longer a mystery.  The Greek word translated disobedience is ἀπειθείας (a form of ἀπείθεια).  God has consigned all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, another form of ἀπείθεια) so that he may show mercy to them all.  The sons of disobedience are old humans, they have not been born from above: Therefore do not be partakers with them, for you were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.  Walk as children of the light[6]  Paul made this same contrast between the old human (παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον) and the new (νέον, a form of νέος) for the Colossians (3:7-11 NET):

You also lived your lives in this way at one time, when you used to live among them (ἐν τούτοις; literally “in these”).  But now, put off all such things as anger, rage, malice, slander, abusive language from your mouth.  Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old (παλαιὸν, a form of παλαιός) man (ἄνθρωπον, a form of ἄνθρωπος) with its practices and have been clothed with the new man that is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it.  Here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and in all.

I think the Bible has been translated by those who expect most people to spend eternity in the lake of fire.  I don’t intend to dispute that view.  On the contrary, the idea I’m experimenting with here is that all old humans are condemned to spend eternity in the lake of fire.  How many new humans spend eternity with Jesus and his Father?  That depends on God’s mercy—I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion[7]—up to and including all—For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[8]

I’m a long way, however, from accepting Universalism, demanding that He save all.  Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,[9] was a perfect opportunity to specify few, many or all.  Neither Paul nor the Holy Spirit chose to do so.  Enter through the narrow gate, Jesus said, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.  But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult (τεθλιμμένη, a form of θλίβω) that leads to life, and there are few who find it.[10]  In the past I took this to mean that ultimately relatively few will be saved.  Now I think differently.

Since yehôvâh informed Cain, you must subdue [sin],[11] and Moses commanded Israel to choose life,[12] salvation was determined by the desire, or willingness, of human beings, whosoever will.  The result, there are few who find it, is what Jesus became human to change.  Someone asked Him directly, “Lord, will only a few be saved?”  Speaking in real time before his crucifixion and resurrection, He said, “Exert every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able (ἰσχύσουσιν, a form of ἰσχύω) to.  Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, then you will stand outside and start to knock on the door and beg him, ‘Lord, let us in!’  But he will answer you, ‘I don’t know where you come from.’” [13]  I tell you the solemn truth, Jesus also said, I am the door for the sheep.[14]  As I considered both of these together I wondered what door the head of the house gets up and shuts.

Surely, it was not Jesus but whosoever will.  The most immediate reason why the many could not enter was the shut door, but a survey of the word ἰσχύω suggests they were not good enough,[15] not strong enough,[16] not healthy enough,[17] not vigilant enough[18] and they would not endure long enough[19] in their own strength.  And so Jesus became the door.  No one can come to me, He said, unless the Father who sent me draws him[20]  And I, Jesus promised, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.[21]

I’ve written elsewhere what I think about the Greek words translated draws and draw relative to “Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling.”  And I don’t think much of the old human’s free will in any sense beyond contingent choices.   I certainly don’t think it is sacrosanct to God.  It wasn’t sacrosanct when He gave old humans over in the desires of their hearts to impurity,[22] to dishonorable passions,[23] and to a depraved mind.[24]  Why should it be sacrosanct when one is born from above, not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God?[25]

Nor can I embrace patristic universalism.  I can’t believe in a purgatorial hell.  In fact, I think the Old Testament narrates how God has gone out of his way to demonstrate over and over again that the best that is ever achieved by punishment, or by the fear of punishment, is hypocrisy.  Jesus said (John 3:5-7, 10 NET):

I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’…Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don’t understand these things?

J.W. Hanson painted the early universalist church fathers as elitists in his book Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years (p. 56):

Some of the fathers who had achieved a faith in Universalism, were influenced by the mischievous notion that it was to be held esoterically, cherished in secret, or only communicated to the chosen few,–withheld from the multitude, who would not appreciate it, and even that the opposite error would, with some sinners, be more beneficial than the truth….Origen said that “all that might be said on this theme is not expedient to explain now, or to all.  For the mass need no further teaching on account of those who hardly through the fear of aeonian punishment restrain their recklessness.”

I’m not oblivious to Origen’s concern, though it seems to me that someone who would return to sin because God is merciful really hasn’t finished with sin yet.  And I consider myself the rankest of the rank and file.  On the other hand Mr. Hanson characterized many of the patristic fathers as liars whenever they taught endless punishment (p. 59):

There can be no doubt that many of the fathers threatened severer penalties than they believed would be visited on sinners, impelled to utter them because they considered them to be more salutary with the masses than the truth itself. So that we may believe that some of the patristic writers who seem to teach endless punishment did not believe it. Others, we know, who accepted universal restoration employed, for the sake of deterring sinners, threats that are inconsistent, literally interpreted, with that doctrine.

I began this second round considering condemnation or judgment after I read John F. Walvoord’s commentary on Revelation 20 online (Revelation 20:11, 12 NET).

Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them.  And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne.  Then books were opened, and another book was opened – the book of life.  So the dead were judged (ἐκρίθησαν, a form of κρίνω) by what was written in the books, according to their deeds.

I’m not aware of ἐκρίθησαν translated condemned in any English Bible, but that is what Mr. Walvoord took it to mean: “Their standing posture means that they are now about to be sentenced.”  John’s vision continued (Revelation 20:13-15 NET):

The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged (ἐκρίθησαν, a form of κρίνω) according to his deeds.  Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  This is the second death – the lake of fire.  If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.

Mr. Walvoord wrote, “The summary judgment is pronounced in verse 14 that ‘death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.’  In a word, this means that all who died physically and were in Hades, the intermediate state, are here found unworthy and cast into the lake of fire.”

I was shocked that the doctrine I’ve heard my whole life was based on a rationalist assumption that death and hell, or Death and Hades, were not entities that might be thrown into the lake of fire but merely euphemisms for “all who died physically and were in Hades.”  And this in an essay where literal was used 35 times, literally 12 times and literalness twice, mostly relative to the thousand years, but it was a consistent theme of Mr. Walvoord’s argument.  He wrote for example:

[Barnes] further holds that Revelation 20 should not be taken literally, and interposes the words “as if” before the judgment and resurrection of 20:4 as well as with the binding of Satan. This would seem to be adding to the book, so strongly forbidden in 22:18.

But Mr. Walvoord’s understanding of Revelation 20:13-15 presents us with the following rewrite:

Revelation 20:14, 15 NET

Revelation 20:14, 15 John F. Walvoord

Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  This is the second death – the lake of fire.  If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire. Then the dead that were in Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  This is the second death – the lake of fire.  No one’s name was found written in the book of life, so they were all thrown into the lake of fire.

Mr Walvoord concluded, without a Scripture quotation or any fear of contradiction:

If the point of view be adopted that the book of life was originally the book of all living from which have been expunged the names of those who departed from life on earth without salvation, it presents a sad picture of a blank space where their names could have been written for all eternity as the objects of divine grace. Though they are judged by their works, it is evident that their destiny is determined primarily by their lack of spiritual life. When the fact is contemplated that Jesus Christ in His death reconciled the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19) and that He died for the reprobate as well as for the elect, it is all the more poignant that these now raised from the dead are cast into the lake of fire. Their ultimate destiny of eternal punishment is not, in the last analysis, because God wished it but because they would not come to God for the grace which He freely offered.

What about the dead in the sea?  I think we can accept that the sea is not an entity that might be thrown into the lake of fire.  I would assume that the names of some, up to and including all, were written in the book of life.  Mr. Walvoord changed the subject:

A special problem is introduced by the resurrection of those who were cast into the sea with the presumption that their bodies have disintegrated and have been scattered over a wide area geographically. The special mention of the sea is occasioned by the fact that resurrection usually implies resurrection from the grave. The resurrection of the dead from the sea merely reaffirms that all the dead will be raised regardless of the condition of their bodies.

I would assume though Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire, the names of some of their dead, up to and including all, were written in the book of life.  The idea I’m experimenting with is that the new humans born of God are spared while the old humans, in a one for one correspondence, are judged according to their deeds and thrown into the lake of fire.  And this, because the names in the book of life are not written there by some who came “to God for the grace which He freely offered” but by the mercy of God (Romans 9:15, 16 NET):

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 [e.g., “whosoever will”], but on God who shows mercy.

 


[1] Enter through (διὰ) the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through (δι᾿, another form of διὰ) it  (Matthew 7:13 NET).

[2] Romans 1:28 (NKJV)

[3] Romans 1:28b (NET)

[4] Ephesians 5:6b (NET)

[5] Ephesians 5:5b (NET)

[6] Ephesians 5:7, 8 (NET)

[7] Romans 9:15 (NET)

[8] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[9] 1 Timothy 1:15b (NET)

[10] Matthew 7:13, 14 (NET)

[11] Genesis 4:7b (NET)

[12] Deuteronomy 30:19 (NET)

[13] Luke 13:23-25 (NET)

[14] John 10:7 (NET)

[15] It is no longer good (ἰσχύει, another form of ἰσχύω) for anything except to be thrown out and trampled on by people (Matthew 5:13b NET).

[16] No one was strong enough (ἴσχυεν, another form of ἰσχύω) to subdue him (Mark 5:4b NET).

[17] Those who are healthy (ἰσχύοντες, another form of ἰσχύω) don’t need a physician… (Matthew 9:12b NET)

[18] Couldn’t (ἴσχυσας, another form of ἰσχύω) you stay awake for one hour? (Mark 14:37b NET)

[19] I am able (ἰσχύω) to do all things through the one who strengthens me (Philippians 4:13 NET).

[20] John 6:44a (NET)

[21] John 12:32 (NET)

[22] Romans 1:24 (NET) Table

[23] Romans 1:26 (NET)

[24] Romans 1:28 (NET)

[25] John 1:13 (NET)

Romans, Part 58

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 JacobAnd 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)

Apostles and Prophets, Part 1

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 officeofficial. 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/

Romans, Part 44

Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, Paul continued, by the mercies (οἰκτιρμῶν)[1] of God[2]  The Greek word οἰκτιρμῶν (a form of οἰκτιρμός), translated mercies, is the noun that corresponds to the verb translated compassion in, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion (οἰκτιρήσω, a form of οἰκτείρω)[3] on whom I have compassion (οἰκτίρω, another form of οἰκτείρω).[4]  It was translated mercy again in Paul’s conclusion written to the Colossians: Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy (οἰκτιρμοῦ, another form of οἰκτιρμός), kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else.  Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also forgive others.[5]

Jesus said, love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back.  Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people.  Be merciful (οἰκτίρμονες, a form of οἰκτίρμων),[6] just as your Father is merciful (οἰκτίρμων).[7]  The Greek word οἰκτίρμων is essentially the adjective of the noun οἰκτιρμός and the verb οἰκτείρω.  Taken together these three passages give me some understanding of what it means to present [my body] as a sacrifice in Paul’s conclusion: Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice – alive, holy, and pleasing to God – which is your reasonable service.[8]

It took me some time to get here.  At first I thought the phrase by the mercies of God (διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ) applied only to Paul’s exhortation.  I thought that because of God’s mercies to me it was reasonable that I present my body as a sacrifice to Him.  My religion had no rite or ritual for accomplishing this, but it did have a saying: Those who attend faithfully on Sunday morning love the church; those who attend faithfully Sunday morning and Sunday evening love the Pastor; but those who attend faithfully on Sunday and Wednesday evening prayer meeting love the Lord.  I assumed that presenting my body as a sacrifice had something to do with attending church every time the doors were open and doing whatever the Pastor said: Obey your leaders and submit to them, the author of the letter to the Hebrews wrote, for they keep watch over your souls and will give an account for their work.[9]

I might have continued trying to prove how much I loved God rather than being transformed by his love.  But I continued studying the Bible and the Holy Spirit brought Scriptures to mind that disagreed with, or severely limited, the points my various Pastors made in their sermons.  It was a difficult and confusing time.  But eventually I began to see the Bible, not as a rule book, but as a way to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He] sent.[10]

The Bible changed then from a discussion of many things into a discussion of primarily one issue from many perspectives, namely, this eternal life in Jesus Christ.  In that light it was easier to recognize that the phrase by the mercies of God (διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ) also described how to present my body as a sacrifice: διὰ (through) the mercies of God, sharing in his compassion, clothed with [his] heart of mercy, his kindness, his humility, his gentleness, and his patienceforgiving one anotherJust as the Lord has forgiven [me], being merciful just as he is merciful.

Do not be conformed to this present world,[11] Paul added more detail.  I assume that this present world is equivalent to the works of the flesh:[12] hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, and envying.[13]  I didn’t leave sexual immorality (πορνεία),[14] impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery and murder[15] out of this list because I think they are any less the works of the flesh.  Given my background and upbringing they are the obvious works of the flesh while hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, and envying might seem virtuous if directed against sin or sinners or heretics or people who don’t accept my interpretation of the Bible.

The word translated envying for instance is φθόνοι (a form of φθόνος).[16]  Pilate knew that [Jesus’ accusers] had handed him over because of envy[17] (φθόνον, another form of φθόνος).  If I were writing myself as a character in a movie it would make perfect sense for that character to envy Ingmar Bergman, a creative genius, a talented and successful director of both theater and film.  So much in his films seems like anti-religious agitprop.  I have never heard that he repented or showed any signs of faith in Jesus.  By all rights I, like Bess from Lars Von Trier’s “Breaking the Waves,” should say of Ingmar Bergman, “He will go to hell; everyone knows that.”

Yet when I search myself I find instead that I hope against hope for God’s mercy.  I can’t find an explanation for it apart from the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control[18] that floods into me and through me from the Holy Spirit.  I am not as creative or talented or successful as Ingmar Bergman, but I have received a superabundance of mercy and grace while he suffered unspeakably from religious minds, his own as well as those of others.  Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, Paul continued in Romans, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect (τέλειον, a form of τέλειος).[19]

Love never ends (πίπτει, a form of πίπτω),[20] Paul wrote the Corinthians.  According to the definitions listed in the NET online Bible this means that love never 1) descends from a higher place to a lower; love never 1a) falls, 1a1) is thrust down 1b) (metaph.) falls under judgment, or comes under condemnation; love never 2) descends from an erect to a prostrate position 2a) falls down 2a1) is prostrated, or falls prostrate;[21] love never 2a2) is overcome by terror or astonishment or grief or under the attack of an evil spirit or of falling dead suddenly; love never 2a3) is dismembered like a corpse by decay 2a4) prostrates itself 2a5) renders homage or worship to one 2a6) falls out, falls from, perishes or is lost; love never 2a7) falls down, or falls into ruin 2b) is cast down from a state of prosperity 2b1) falls from a state of uprightness; love never 2b2) perishes, comes to an end, disappears, ceases; love never 2b3) loses authority, or no longer has force 2b4) is removed from power by death 2b5) fails of participating in, or misses a share in [Christ’s salvation because love (ἀγάπη) is his salvation and his righteousness in a word].

This was in contrast to prophecies, that will be set asidetongues, that will cease…and knowledge, that will be set aside.[22]  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect (τέλειον, a form of τέλειος) comes, the partial will be set aside.[23]  Love not only transcends this coming perfection, it facilitates it according to John: whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has been perfected (τετελείωται, a form of τελειόω).[24]  By this we know that we are in him.[25]

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ,[26] Paul wrote the Ephesians.  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 (τέλειον, a form of τέλειος) person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature.[27]  I have begun to wonder: if the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers aren’t encouraging me to be perfected in God’s love, are they acting as ambassadors for Christ[28] or emissaries of the religious mind?

Paul wrote the Colossians, I became a servant of the church according to the stewardship from God – given to me for you – in order to complete (πληρῶσαι, a form of πληρόω; or, fulfillthe word of God, that is, the mystery that has been kept hidden from ages and generations, but has now been revealed to his saints.  God wanted to make known to them the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.  We proclaim him by instructing and teaching all people with all wisdom so that we may present every person mature (τέλειον, a form of τέλειος; e.g., perfected in and by God’s love) in Christ.[29]

When I consider the justice of God’s mercy in and through Christ I am reminded of Friedrich Nietzsche.  Jesus said, Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.[30]  The soul cannot be killed with weaponry.  But Friedrich Nietzsche came about as close to being a soul killer as I can imagine a human being becoming.  Who can calculate his devastating impact on the souls of academics and the intelligentsia?  But if I imagine him in torment in hell for all eternity, cursing his nonexistent god, I realize that I can imagine no greater destruction of the personality I know as Friedrich Nietzsche than to find him one day clothed and in his right mind,[31] and sitting at the feet of Jesus.


[2] Romans 12:1a (NET)

[4] Romans 9:15 (NET)

[5] Colossians 3:12, 13 (NET)

[7] Luke 6:35, 36 (NET)

[8] Romans 12:1 (NET)

[9] Hebrews 13:17a (NET)

[11] Romans 12:2a (NET)

[17] Matthew 27:18 (NET)

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

[19] Romans 12:2 (NET)

[20] 1 Corinthians 13:8a (NET)

[21] At the end of the movie “The Lord of the Rings – The Return of the King” as the newly crowned king approached, the Hobbits—Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin—bowed.  The king said, “My friends, you bow to no one.”  Then he and all present knelt before them.  In the context of the fruit of the Spirit love certainly does not fall prostrate before rules or laws:  Against such things there is no law (Galatians 5:23b NET).  On the contrary, Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10 NET).  The fear that I might love too much, be too joyful, too peaceful, too patient, too kind, too good, too faithful, too gentle, or too controlled by the Holy Spirit, that I should intervene and hold myself aloof from being engulfed, buoyed up and carried along by that living stream that makes glad the city of God, that I should draw back to some Aristotelian mean between the extremes, is not from God.  In this sense then I understand “Love never falls prostrate” (or never “renders homage or worship”), not that Love is god, but that God is love.

[22] 1 Corinthians 13:8b (NET)

[23] 1 Corinthians 13:9, 10 (NET)

[25] 1 John 2:5 (NET)

[26] Ephesians 4:7 (NET)

[27] Ephesians 4:11-13 (NET)

[28] 2 Corinthians 5:20 (NET)

[29] Colossians 1:25-28 (NET)

[30] Matthew 10:28a (NET)

Romans, Part 43

So I ask, Paul began the eleventh chapter of Romans, God has not rejected his people, has he?[1] referring to his fellow countrymen.[2]  In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, he concluded finally, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers.  For the gifts (χαρίσματα, a form of χάρισμα) and the call (κλῆσις) of God are irrevocable (ἀμεταμέλητα, a form of ἀμεταμέλητος[5]  Just as you were formerly disobedient (ἠπειθήσατε, a form of ἀπειθέω) to God, but have now received mercy (ἠλεήθητε, a form of ἐλεέω) due to their disobedience (ἀπειθείᾳ, 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).  For God has consigned (συνέκλεισεν, a form of συγκλείω) all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, another form of ἀπείθεια) so that he may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, another form of ἐλεέω) to them all.[11]

A note in the NET acknowledged that them “has been supplied for stylistic reasons.”  The original Greek reads simply, “to all.”  I don’t want to get involved in a “universal salvation” argument.  It seems to go nowhere.  After throwing Scripture around and philosophical opinions about free will the argument devolves into something like, “Well, I could never believe in a god who sent (or, would not send) anyone to hell.”  I know I will trust Him as long as He pours his faithfulness (πίστις) into me through his Spirit,[13] whether He sends or does not send people to hell or not.  I do want to consider some of the things about God’s mercy that Paul outlined in Romans 9-11 in a table below.

What Jesus’ obedience, death and resurrection means to his Father, according to Paul

OLD TESTAMENT

Jesus’ obedience, death and resurrection

NEW TESTAMENT

For [God] says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Romans 9:15 (NET)

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.

Romans 11:30, 31 (NET)

God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden.

Romans 9:18 (NET)

So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to…all.

Romans 11:32 (NET)

It may be arbitrary on my part to place—God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden—exclusively under the Old Covenant, if that is seen as a limit to God’s choosing.  My point is simply its logical relationship to I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.  Paul’s conclusion—So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy—serves then as the logical and justificatory bridge to his New Covenant argument concluding that, God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to…all.

The word translated consigned is συνέκλεισεν (a form of συγκλείω) in Greek.  Paul used it again when he wrote the Galatians, the scripture imprisoned (συνέκλεισεν) everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given – because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ – to those who believe.[15]  Another form of the same word is found in Luke’s account of the calling of Peter, James and John: When they had done this [e.g., obeyed Jesus by lowering their nets where he instructed them to lower them], they caught (συνέκλεισαν, another form of συγκλείω) so many fish that their nets started to tear.[16]  It is an interesting image, all of us, all humanity, caught in his net.  For God has consigned all people to disobedience[17]  Like fearful fish we flail frantically to escape from the One who whispers, Stop your striving and recognize that I am God.[18]  For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[19]

I also want to consider the Old Testament precedent for Paul’s reasoning in Romans 11:30 and 31: The word of the Lord came to me, Ezekiel the prophet wrote.  “Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her abominable practices…”[20]

Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite [Table].  Your older sister was Samaria, who lived north of you with her daughters, and your younger sister, who lived south of you, was Sodom with her daughters [Table].  Have you not copied their behavior and practiced their abominable deeds?  In a short time you became even more depraved in all your conduct than they were [Table]!  As surely as I live, declares the sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never behaved as wickedly as you and your daughters have behaved [Table].[21]

You have made your sisters appear righteous with all the abominable things you have done [Table], the Lord continued.  So now, bear your disgrace, because you have given your sisters reason to justify their behavior.  Because the sins you have committed were more abominable than those of your sisters; they have become more righteous than you [Table].[22]  I will restore their fortunes, the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters [Table]…[23]

Like Samaria or Sodom, Paul wrote Gentile believers, that senseless nation[24] chosen for salvation, Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy due to [Israel’s] disobedience,[25] because, by [Israel’s] transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous.[26]  The fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters will be restored (along with your [Jerusalem’s] fortunes among them) [Table], so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in consoling them [Table].  As for your sisters, Sodom and her daughters will be restored to their former status, Samaria and her daughters will be restored to their former status, and you and your daughters will be restored to your former status [Table].[27]

So, Paul continued, they [Israel] too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy.[28]  I will deal with you according to what you have done when you despised your oath by breaking your covenant, the Lord said to Jerusalem through Ezekiel.  Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish a lasting covenant with you.[29]  I will establish my covenant with you, the Lord continued, and then you will know that I am the Lord.  Then you will remember, be ashamed, and remain silent when I make atonement for all you have done, declares the sovereign Lord.[30]

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! Paul continued.  How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways!  For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?  Or who has first given to God, that God needs to repay him?  For from him and through him and to him are all things.  To him be glory forever!  Amen.[31]

It causes me to wonder.  I assume that all in—he may show mercy to…all[32]—refers to human beings, those born of Adam.  But if senseless Gentiles, chosen for salvation to make Israel jealous, reject the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness – a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness to pursue their own righteousness derived[33] from a select subset of the law and their own religious rules, will that open Christ’s salvation to demons and fallen angels?  Will senseless Gentiles be resurrected to bear [their] disgrace and be ashamed of all [they] have done in consoling demons and fallen angels?  Will the administration of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in Christ really mean all things? – the things in heaven as well as the things on earth[34]?


[1] Romans 11:1a (NET)

[2] Romans 9:3 (NET)

[5] Romans 11:28, 29 (NET)

[11] Romans 11:30-32 (NET)

[15] Galatians 3:22 (NET)

[16] Luke 5:6 (NET)

[17] Romans 11:32a (NET)

[18] Psalm 46:10a (NET)

[19] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[20] Ezekiel 16:1, 2 (NET)

[21] Ezekiel 16:45b-48 (NET)

[22] Ezekiel 16:51b, 52a (NET)

[23] Ezekiel 16:53a (NET)

[24] Romans 10:19 (NET)

[25] Romans 11:30 (NET)

[26] Romans 11:11b (NET)

[27] Ezekiel 16:53-55 (NET)

[28] Romans 11:31 (NET)

[29] Ezekiel 16:59, 60 (NET)

[30] Ezekiel 16:62, 63 (NET)

[31] Romans 11:33-36 (NET)

[32] Romans 11:32b (NET)

[33] Philippians 3:9 (NET)

[34] Ephesians 1:10 (NET)

Paul’s OT Quotes – Romans 9:1-20

What follows is an analysis of Paul’s Old Testament quotations in Romans 9:7-13:

#

Paul (NET)

Blue Letter Bible (Septuagint)

NET Bible (Greek parallel text)

1

through Isaac will your descendants be counted

Romans 9:7 (NET)

ἐν Ισαακ κληθήσεταί[1]  σοι σπέρμα

Genesis 21:12

ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεται σοι σπέρμα

Romans 9:7

2

About a year from now I will return and Sarah will have a son.

Romans 9:9 (NET)

ἥξω[2] πρὸς σὲ[3] κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας[4] καὶ ἕξει υἱὸν Σαρρα[5]

Genesis 18:10

καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σαρρα υἱός

Genesis 18:14

κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι[6]  καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός.

Romans 9:9

3

The older will serve the younger

Romans 9:12 (NET)

ὁ μείζων δουλεύσει τῷ ἐλάσσονι

Genesis 25:23

ὁ μείζων[7] δουλεύσει τῷ ἐλάσσονι[8]

Romans 9:12

4

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated

Romans 9:13 (NET)

ἠγάπησα τὸν Ιακωβ τὸν δὲ Ησαυ ἐμίσησα

Malachi 1:2, 3

τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα

Romans 9:13

Item #1 is identical in the Septuagint and the parallel Greek text except that the accent mark is missing from before Ισαακ (Isaac) in the Septuagint.  The Greek word κληθήσεταί, translated counted in the NET above, is a form of καλέω, like ἐκάλεσεν:  And those he predestined, he also called (ἐκάλεσεν); and those he called (ἐκάλεσεν), he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.[9]  But in this particular form it is called as in a designation:  Jesus would be called (ἐκάλεσα, another form of καλέω) a Nazarene.[10]  So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called (κληθήσεταί) least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called (κληθήσεταί) great in the kingdom of heaven.[11]

Item #2 began ἥξω (I will come) πρὸς σὲ (to you) in the Septuagint followed by the prepositional phrase κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον.  In Revelation 3:3 (NET) ἥξω was translated I will come both times it occurred:  If you do not wake up, I will come (ἥξω) like a thief, and you will never know at what hour I will come (ἥξω) against you.[12]  Paul left off πρὸς σὲ (to you) and (after the prepositional phrase κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον) chose ἐλεύσομαι, which was also translated I will come in Romans 15:29 and 1 Corinthians 4:19 (NET).  Paul also left off εἰς ὥρας (next year or in due time).  The differences in the final phrases are detailed in Note #5 below.  The repetition of that phrase in Genesis 18:14 was identical to Paul’s construction.  I consider this a paraphrase more than a quotation.

Item #3 is identical in the Septuagint and the New Testament.  While it is certainly not wrong to translate μείζων older and ἐλάσσονι younger in this context, it hides a nuance that they might have been translated greater and lesser respectively.  Who is the greatest (μείζων) in the kingdom of heaven?[13]  He called a child, had him stand among them, and said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!  Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest (μείζων) in the kingdom of heaven.[14]

Item #4 only differs in the word order of the first phrase (and some accent marks on Ιακωβ [Jacob] and Ησαυ [Esau]): ἠγάπησα τὸν Ιακωβ (I loved Jacob) in the Septuagint; τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα (Jacob I loved) in the New Testament.

What follows is an analysis of Paul’s Old Testament quotations in Romans 9:15-20:

#

Paul (NET)

Blue Letter Bible (Septuagint)

NET Bible (Greek parallel text)

5

I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

Romans 9:15 (NET)

ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω

Exodus 33:19

ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω.

Romans 9:15

6

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.

Romans 9:17 (NET)

καὶ ἕνεκεν τούτου[15] διετηρήθης ἵνα[16] ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν[17] μου καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ

Exodus 9:16

εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο[18] ἐξήγειρα σε ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμιν μου καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομα μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ

Romans 9:17

7

Does what is molded say to the molder, Why have you made me like this?

Romans 9:20 (NET)

μὴ[19] ἐρεῖ[20] τὸ[21] πλάσμα[22] τῷ πλάσαντι[23] οὐ σύ με ἔπλασας ἢ τὸ ποίημα τῷ ποιήσαντι οὐ συνετῶς με ἐποίησας[24]

Isaiah 29:16

μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι· τί[25] με[26]   ἐποίησας οὕτως[27]

Romans 9:20

Item #5 is the same in the Septuagint and the New Testament.

In Item #6 the second clause καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ (and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth) is identical in both the Septuagint and the New Testament except that the accent mark is missing from α at the end of ὄνομα (name) in the parallel Greek text.  According to Bill Braun[28] “The main difference in this citation is the use of a different verb in this first clause.  The NT uses the Greek verb ἐξήγειρά (ἐξεγείρω- 1s-AAI- Mng.- to raise up; bring into being; elevate (BDAG, 346); Trans.- elevated).  The LXX uses the verb διετηρήθης (διατηρέω -2s-API- Mng.- to preserve (GELS); Trans.- you have been preserved).  Certainly these verbs are different….In this case the LXX does follow the sense of the MT better since the Hebrew verb הֶעֱמַדְתִּיךָ (עָמַד -H-14; x2ms; Mng.- to cause to stand firm; maintain (BDB, 764); Trans.- caused to stand firm (or remain)) is very close in meaning.”[29]

As I contemplated why he deliberately changed the word, it came to me that Paul wasn’t grappling with the relatively minor issue of why God kept or preserved a harsh ruler over his people longer than they thought He should.  Paul was entertaining the alarming possibility that his contemporaries, men he studied the Torah with, his brothers, fellow Israelites, might have been raised up or brought into being by God only to be condemned for eternity.  His anguish is palpable:  I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.  For I could wish that I myself were accursed – cut off from Christ – for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen, who are Israelites.[30]

The minor differences are as follows:  Paul began with the phrase εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο (for this very purpose).  The Septuagint began καὶ ἕνεκεν τούτου (and for this purpose).  Paul used a different conjunction ὅπως (in such manner as) than ἵνα (in that place) in the Septuagint.  Paul chose δύναμίν over ἰσχύν (strength).  There are enough differences in the first clause that I find it difficult to think of as a quotation.  It is more like an amplification of Paul’s point:  So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden.[31]

It stands as an allusion to, So the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.  You are to speak everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh that he must release the Israelites from his land.  But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and although I will multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you.”[32]  This mirrored Paul’s experience too often to pass without comment.

Item #7 doesn’t seem like a quote at all to me, beyond the introductory phrase μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι (does what is molded say to the molder).  Instead it points to Paul’s reasoning process.  Here are the relevant texts (Isaiah 29:16; 45:9 NET)

Your thinking is perverse!  Should the potter be regarded as clay?  Should the thing made say about its maker, “He didn’t make me”?  Or should the pottery say about the potter, “He doesn’t understand”?

One who argues with his creator is in grave danger, one who is like a mere shard among the other shards on the ground!  The clay should not say to the potter, “What in the world are you doing?  Your work lacks skill!”

If it is perverse to regard the potter as clay, and for the thing made to say about its maker, “He didn’t make me,” or “He doesn’t understand,” then it is likewise perverse for what is molded to say to the molder, “Why have you made me like this?” (specifically, why have you hardened me like this?).  It puts one in grave danger, like the clay saying to the potter, “What in the world are you doing?  Your work lacks skill!”

And again, one who hears and fears this is hearing the word of God.  God is calling.  Hear also the words that brought comfort and hope to Paul’s anguish:  “I will call those who were not my people, My people, and I will call her who was unloved, My beloved.’”  “And in the very place where it was said to them, You are not my people, there they will be called sons of the living God.’”[33]

Paul’s OT Quotes – Romans 9:25-33


[2] Revelation 3:3 (NET) The phrase I will come is ἥξω both times.

[3] “The NT text leaves off the prepositional phrase ‘πρὸς σὲ’ which means, ‘to you’.”  http://ntuseoflxx.com/Rom9-9.html

[4] “The NT also leaves off the prepositional phrase εἰς ὥρας, (mng.-next year or in due time (GELS); Trans.- next year).”  http://ntuseoflxx.com/Rom9-9.html

[5] “The last clause, which translates ‘Sarah will have a son’ for both the NT and LXX, is constructed differently in the Greek texts.  The NT uses a passive construction and the verb ἔσται from ειμι (3s-FMI; Mng.- to be; Trans.- will be; or, if translated in proper English with Sarah as the subject, ‘Sarah shall have a son’).  This more impersonal construction is also the reason that Sarah is in the dative case as an indirect object (τῇ Σάρρᾳ) and ‘a son’ is in the nominative case.  Whereas the LXX uses an active construction and the verb ἕξει from εχω (3s-FAI; Mng. – to have; Trans.- will have).  Here Sarah is the subject and ‘a son’ is the direct object.  These statements are identical in meaning despite the different constructions and verb choice.  In this case, the NT follows the MT better since the MT uses a more impersonal construction by employing a verbless clause and indirect object ‘to Sarah’ (לְשָׂרָה).  When we translate a verbless clauses in Hebrew we must supply a being verb, which the NT does (see IBHS, 72).  But, in the end the MT must also translate as ‘Sarah will have a son’.  Thus, all three texts are identical in meaning.”  http://ntuseoflxx.com/Rom9-9.html

[9] Romans 8:30 (NET)

[10] Matthew 2:23 (NET)

[11] Matthew 5:19 (NET)

[12] Revelation 3:3b (NET)

[13] Matthew 18:1 (NET)

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

[15] “the LXX phrase ‘καὶ ἕνεκεν τούτου’ is practically identical translating as, ‘And for this purpose..’.” http://ntuseoflxx.com/Rom9-17.html

[16] “Next the NT texts uses a slightly different conjunction ὅπως as compared to the conjunction ἵνα of the LXX.  The NT contains the conjuction ὅπως (Mng. -‘in order to’; conjunction expressing purpose for an event or state (BDAG, 718)).  The LXX uses the conjunction ἵνα (Mng.- marker to denote purpose, aim, goal (BDAG, 475)).  Thus we see that these two conjunction overlap in their usage, in that they both denote purpose.  Thus, there is no noticable change in the sense of the passage due to this change.  Both Greek texts follow the Hebrew equally as well.”  http://ntuseoflxx.com/Rom9-17.html

[17] “Next the NT has a noun which is merely a synonym for the LXX counterpart.  The NT has δύναμίν (δύναμις – Mng.- power, might, strength, force (BDAG, 262), whereas the LXX has ἰσχύν (ἰσχύς -Mng.- strength, power, might (BDAG, 484).  Interestingly BDAG notes that the LXX form of ἰσχύς is rare in later times and in insc. and pap. [e.g. PMich 156—II a.d.], but oft. LXX; pseudepigr.; Philo; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 19 al.; Just., Ath., Iren.).  Thus this could be a case of this noun slowly fading out of existence, and thus Paul chose the more contemporary noun.  In any case, there is no change in sense and the Greek texts follow the MT equally as well.”  http://ntuseoflxx.com/Rom9-17.html

[18] “The NT phrase ‘Εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο’ translates as, ‘for this very purpose.’”  http://ntuseoflxx.com/Rom9-17.html

[25] Translated why in Matthew 6:28 and 7:3 (NET)

[26] A form of ἐγώ, I, me, my.

[30] Romans 9:2-4a (NET) Table

[31] Romans 9:18 (NET)

[32] Exodus 7:1-4a (NET)

[33] Romans 9:25, 26 (NET)

David’s Forgiveness, Part 2

The irony wasn’t lost on me.  I had a good laugh at myself as I realized I was frustrated with the Bible and complaining because God was too merciful.  “If He would just follow the law, my life would be a whole lot simpler.”  True enough, dead is a whole lot simpler than alive.  I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy1 God said to Moses after giving the law at Mount Sinai.  I had certainly seen the verse.  I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion2 Paul reiterated in his letter to the Romans.  I had read that one, too.  But it seemed so arbitrary and unfair I had blipped it.  I wanted to think of God as good not evil, and righteousness meant obeying the law.  Didn’t it?

It was another crack in the shell my contract with God had become.  I experimented briefly with calling these events “consequences,” rather than punishments.  But “consequences” seemed to imply more universality than I believe to be the case here.  This particular concatenation of events is uniquely and personally David’s life.  So I called it “David’s personal karma from the hand of Jesus.”

David’s personal karma from the hand of Jesus

You have killed him [Uriah] with the sword of the Ammonites.

2 Samuel 12:9 (NET) Table

So now the sword will never depart from your house.

2 Samuel 12:10 (NET) Table

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

2 Samuel 12:10 (NET)

This is what the Lord says: “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! [Table] Although you have acted in secret, I will do this thing before all Israel, and in broad daylight” [Table].

2 Samuel 12:11,12

…because you have treated the Lord with such contempt in this matter…

2 Samuel 12:14 (NET) Table

…the son who has been born to you will certainly die.

2 Samuel 12:14 (NET)

This karma had something to do with David’s sin, obviously, but it also had something to do with God’s forgiveness.  I can’t actually recall how soon I began to wonder if it had something to do with “all things working together for good” and making David’s “sins as white as snow” as well.

If David’s child didn’t die as a punishment, why did he die? I began to ponder.  Come on, I argued with myself, a child contracted a fatal disease and died three thousand years before the advent of modern medicine.  What’s the big deal?  I agree with that statement, believe it or not.

I was born in the middle of the last century.  I was as thoroughly socialized in this age of medical advancement as anyone.  I expect this medical advance to continue without foreseeable end.  I don’t take The Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and the child became very ill3 literally.  I assume this is an ancient manner of speaking, that the Lord’s actual action was inaction, not protecting this particular child at this particular time from infection, or not healing this particular child after infection.  I don’t believe that every child’s death is as theologically meaningful as this particular child’s death.  Nor do I believe that this child’s death is a statistically random event mistakenly imbued with theological significance.  The prophetic pairing of this child’s death with David’s contempt for Jesus infuses it with significance.  And that significance is what I’m trying to understand here.

One more thing, the Lord Jesus/Yahweh, whether by action or inaction, has taken full responsibility for this child’s death: The Lord struck the child.  I realize it is more customary to argue that God’s hand was forced because David had treated the Lord with such contempt.  I’ve probably argued this way myself.  But it seems to me now that any attempt to exonerate God by limiting Him, saying He was backed into a corner, or his hand was forced by some circumstance, is simply not to know Him.  And I am always mindful now of what happened when Jesus took responsibility for Peter’s denial.

One thought occurred to me early on:  Perhaps the Lord Jesus didn’t want David to have the blessing and benefit of a son by such ill-gotten means as adultery and murder.  The Psalm I took as my point of departure is actually credited to Solomon (Psalm 127:3-5 NET):

Yes, sons are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward.  Sons born during one’s youth are like arrows in a warrior’s hand.  How blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!  They will not be put to shame when they confront enemies at the city gate.

Though the pen was Solomon’s the thought here seems to me to be David’s.  First, the warrior language seems more like David than Solomon.  Second, my own, “yeah, right” response to this Psalm the first time I read it, informs me that a man is not likely to feel this way about his sons unless he has first been treated this way by his father.

My father advised me to watch out for women.  They would try to trap and trick me into raising their children.  At school I was learning other things about the evils of children.  Children had real value in the past, helping out on the farm or in the family business.  But during my childhood, though it may have been somewhat true for rich business owners, for most working-class families children were an unnecessary expense, a meaningless burden and a general nuisance to have around.  Besides all this the population bomb defined the social and political climate of my upbringing.  We were all going to die because there were just too many of us already.  Children were not a blessing, but a curse, the punishment for sex.

This is as good a time as any to address The Social Construction of Reality.

As I became an atheist I thought I was being logical and consistently rational.  As I turned again to a semblance of faith in God I thought I was being logical and consistently rational (though I was a bit concerned as I devoured the Bible that I was “swallowing all this religious stuff hook, line and sinker”).  I assumed that I could not have been truly rational in both instances unless there was some fatal flaw in logic itself.  The binary nature of logic seemed like the culprit to me.

Its insufficiency is fairly obvious in law:  “Have you stopped beating your wife?  Answer yes or no.”  But an axiom of more conventional logic—either a statement or its negation is true—seemed just as flawed.  If one has any affection for truth, is it possible to believe one can know it by adding the word “not” to an obvious falsehood?  If I negate the word of Satan, the father of lies, do I then possess the word of God?  I believe it?  That settles it?

That kind of instinctual argument doesn’t mean much in logic.  But the best I could conjure was the statement:  Jackie must eat her vegetables.  There is a world of potential truths between Jackie must eat her vegetables and the negation of that statement:  Jackie must not eat her vegetables.  Jackie might spit up her vegetables.  Jackie might fling her vegetables against the wall.  Jackie might dump the bowl of vegetables on her head.

Of course the logician would counter with the formal:  It is not the case that Jackie must eat her vegetables.  Still, I hoped that even the most hardboiled logician might concede that he was resorting to this formalism simply to maintain the truth of the very axiom in question—either a statement or its negation is true.  I began to suspect that the two choices, true and false, were insufficient to account for reality.  Reality was tripartite in nature—three not two.  I began to collect quotations for my magnum philosophical opus “The Tripartite Rationality Index.”

Also, to counter the “hook, line and sinker” effect of reading the Bible, I began to search for ballast to keep me honest.  I started with Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, but he didn’t seem to know much about the Bible.  Russell did introduce me, however, to Nietzsche.

I quit my job.  It was no great sacrifice.  I hated that job.  I got a part time job, read Nietzsche, the Bible and everything else I could get my hands on, and collected notes for “The Tripartite Rationality Index.”

Finally, the day came.  I sat on the floor in my apartment, arranging and rearranging my note cards in various relationships.  I said to myself, “You haven’t written a word yet.  It’s time to put up or shut up.  What is the third thing?  Describe it.”  I sat there all afternoon trying—ever more clearly—to define the third thing.  In the end I couldn’t distinguish my clearest description from faith.  I picked up my notes, put them away, and enrolled in college for the second time in my life.

One thing was gained from my reinvention of the wheel.  Before that afternoon the opposition of faith and reason was deeply ingrained in me.  No matter what I thought or said, I believed at the very core of my being that faith was opposed to reason as reason was opposed to faith.  After that afternoon, I believed at the very core of my being that faith and reason were joined in a virtually eternal pas de deux, or dance for two, swirling and twirling, tracing out ever more complex arabesques, their patterns as individual and unique as the content of the faiths that started, and the individual application of reasons that sustained, their dance.

It was in college this second time, in a Geography class, where I first heard of The Social Construction of Reality by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.  I wanted to read it.  I went to the Library immediately after class.  I intended to refute it.  I couldn’t.  I don’t intend to endorse every aspect of Berger’s and Luckmann’s thesis.  I’m not sure I understood every aspect of it.  But that taken for granted knowledge—this is the way the world works, this is the way things are done—is a social construct handed down from generation to generation, locale to locale, family to family, even guild or occupation or virtual community to guild, occupation or virtual community.  It is deeply internalized by all recipients, believed without question, twisted, bent, nudged and deformed by all manner of individual quirks, tastes and idiosyncrasies, until it no longer delivers the goods it was intended to deliver.  And on that last point, Berger and Luckmann may have been overly optimistic.

And though my conservative, evangelical, fundamental Christian upbringing made me desirous to argue  that reality is not—and cannot be—socially constructed, it was my socialization in that community that made me most aware that the knowledge of reality is, in fact, socially constructed.  I had witnessed how alarmed and concerned my elders were any time they heard or read anything contrary to the laws of God revealed in the Bible.  They couldn’t very well deny the social construction of reality when they spent their lives trying to halt or reverse it (at very least, they complained about it) because it proceeded without reference to God, Christ or the Bible.

No, it’s not what I had meant by reality; it’s not what I had hoped for reality.  But I was beginning to see that this knowledge of reality mediated my experience of reality.  And the knowledge of reality is socially constructed by parents and teachers and legislators and thinkers and writers and pundits and poets and entertainers and all manner of people, even theologians, priests and preachers.

 

Addendum: May 10, 2020
A table comparing Paul’s quotation of Exodus 33:19 from the Septuagint follows:

Romans 9:15b (NET Parallel Greek)

Exodus 33:19b (Septuagint BLB)

Exodus 33:19b (Septuagint Elpenor)

ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ, καὶ οἰκτειρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτείρω

Romans 9:15b (NET)

Exodus 33:19b (NETS)

Exodus 33:19b (English Elpenor)

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I have compassion. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will have pity on whom I will have pity.

Tables comparing Exodus 33:19; Psalm 127:3; 127:4 and 127:5 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and tables comparing Exodus 33:19; Psalm 127:3 (126:3); 127:4 (126:4) and 127:5 (126:5) in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor) follow.

Exodus 33:19 (Tanakh)

Exodus 33:19 (KJV)

Exodus 33:19 (NET)

And He said: ‘I will make all My goodness pass before thee, and will proclaim the name of HaShem before thee; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.’ And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. And the Lord said, “I will make all my goodness pass before your face, and I will proclaim the Lord by name before you; I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious; I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.”

Exodus 33:19 (Septuagint BLB)

Exodus 33:19 (Septuagint Elpenor)

καὶ εἶπεν ἐγὼ παρελεύσομαι πρότερός σου τῇ δόξῃ μου καὶ καλέσω ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου κύριος ἐναντίον σου καὶ ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω καὶ εἶπεν· ἐγὼ παρελεύσομαι πρότερός σου τῇ δόξῃ μου καὶ καλέσω τῷ ὀνόματί μου, Κύριος ἐναντίον σου· καὶ ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ, καὶ οἰκτειρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτείρω

Exodus 33:19 (NETS)

Exodus 33:19 (English Elpenor)

And he said, “I will pass by before you in my glory, and I will call by my name “Lord” before you.  And I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I have compassion.” And [God] said, I will pass by before thee with my glory, and I will call by my name, the Lord, before thee; and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will have pity on whom I will have pity.

Psalm 127:3 (Tanakh)

Psalm 127:3 (KJV)

Psalm 127:3 (NET)

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. Yes, sons are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward.

Psalm 127:3 (Septuagint BLB)

Psalm 126:3 (Septuagint Elpenor)

ἰδοὺ ἡ κληρονομία κυρίου υἱοί ὁ μισθὸς τοῦ καρποῦ τῆς γαστρός ἰδοὺ ἡ κληρονομία Κυρίου υἱοί, ὁ μισθὸς τοῦ καρποῦ τῆς γαστρός

Psalm 126:3 (NETS)

Psalm 126:3 (English Elpenor)

Look, the heritage from the Lord is sons, the wage of the fruit of the womb. Behold, the inheritance of the Lord, children, the reward of the fruit of the womb.

Psalm 127:4 (Tanakh)

Psalm 127:4 (KJV)

Psalm 127:4 (NET)

As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Sons born during one’s youth are like arrows in a warrior’s hand.

Psalm 127:4 (Septuagint BLB)

Psalm 126:4 (Septuagint Elpenor)

ὡσεὶ βέλη ἐν χειρὶ δυνατοῦ οὕτως οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἐκτετιναγμένων ὡσεὶ βέλη ἐν χειρὶ δυνατοῦ, οὕτως οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἐκτετιναγμένων

Psalm 126:4 (NETS)

Psalm 126:4 (English Elpenor)

Like arrows in the hand of a powerful one, so are the sons of those expelled. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man; so are the children of those who were outcasts.

Psalm 127:5 (Tanakh)

Psalm 127:5 (KJV)

Psalm 127:5 (NET)

Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. How blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them.  They will not be put to shame when they confront enemies at the city gate.

Psalm 127:5 (Septuagint BLB)

Psalm 126:5 (Septuagint Elpenor)

μακάριος ἄνθρωπος ὃς πληρώσει τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν αὐτοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ καταισχυνθήσονται ὅταν λαλῶσι τοῗς ἐχθροῗς αὐτῶν ἐν πύλῃ μακάριος ὃς πληρώσει τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν αὐτοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν· οὐ καταισχυνθήσονται, ὅταν λαλῶσι τοῖς ἐχθροῖς αὐτῶν ἐν πύλαις

Psalm 126:5 (NETS)

Psalm 126:5 (English Elpenor)

Happy the person who will satisfy his desire with them.  They shall not be put to shame when they speak with their enemies in a gate. Blessed is the man who shall satisfy his desire with them: they shall not be ashamed when they shall speak to their enemies in the gates.

1 Exodus 33:19 (NET)

2 Romans 9:15 (NET)

3 2 Samuel 12:15 (NET) Table