For I am not ashamed – ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ΕΠΑΙΣΧΥΝΟΜΑΙ

We all experience shame. Sometimes the shame is appropriate. Other times it isn’t. Sometimes we ought to experience shame and we don’t. Yet other times, other people would like us to experience shame, but we don’t deserve it. Shame is a complicated – but critical – part of human existence. What are you ashamed of?

(This blog post can also be listened to as a podcast.)

 

The apostle to the Gentiles says this:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16, ESV).

 

In the original Greek language, his words read like this (THGNT version):

οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον· δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι.

 

Paul makes this programmatic statement at the opening of his grand epistle to the Christians in Rome. Paul explains what motivates his massive life of itinerate work, establishing new communities of followers of Jesus in province after province. Paul attributes the monumental power behind his activity entirely to the Gospel: the message of the power of God at work in the life, teaching, unjust execution, resurrection and then exaltation of Jesus into heaven, God’s realm, above all living beings. In short, in the Gospel Jesus reconciles sinners to God. Paul’s words reverberate down through the halls of history. Indeed, so many of us strive to affirm with him these sacred words.

 

Paul says unequivocally that he is not ashamed of the Gospel. But what does it mean to be ashamed? The Greek word here is epaischunomai (ἐπαισχύνομαι). One dictionary describes its meaning like this: “to experience a painful feeling or sense of loss of status because of some particular event or activity” (BDAG). We can spell this out in more detail. Shame is the experience of considerable unease, discomfort or pain at the loss or perceived loss of social status and relationship. Are you ashamed of the Gospel? This is an important question to ask.

 

Do you have any strong memories of experiencing shame? I know I do. Sometimes, I’ve felt shame, though I’ve not done anything wrong. More often than not, though, I’ve felt shame for things that I have done. Shame is not infrequently associated with nudity and sexuality. Sometimes we may experience a sense of shame for the opinions that we hold. The shame may be justified or unjustified. It depends on what we have done.

 

In this blog post, I want to deviate a bit from what I’ve done in the past. Typically, I have done a word study. This time I will, on the one hand, expand this – I’ll look at the concept of shame in the Scriptures. On the other hand, I’ll also look specifically at Paul’s use of epaischunomai (ἐπαισχύνομαι) in Romans 1.

 

First, where does shame appear in the Scriptures? Noticeably, the initial instance of shame occurs as sin first appears on the scene. Adam and Eve become ashamed of their nudity, as their eyes are metaphorically opened, once they have gone against their loving Creator’s one prohibition. They have eaten the fruit that was forbidden them. The result is that they feel shame at their naked bodies.

 

They seek to cover their shame. They sew a girdle of fig leaves. It doesn’t work very well though. Later, God produces designer clothes from them, using presumably the first animal that has been a sacrifice on account of sin. This animal prefigures the great sacrifice that Jesus will make of himself, on behalf of all of us, to cover over the shame from our sin – for all who will believe.

 

Bear in mind, though, that in the pristine garden, before sin arrives, we have the first explicit mention of shame in the Scriptures – or, more precisely, we have a mention of its absence. The final description of shalom and purity in the Garden of Eden is given like this: “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25, ESV). In Hebrew, the word here for being ashamed is hitboshesh (התבושׁשׁ). It was brought into Greek in the ancient translation of the Old Testament with the word aischunomai (αἰσχύνομαι). The word is very closely related to the one Paul uses in Romans 1. (In the New Testament, the simple verb aischunomai – αἰσχύνομαι – appearing here occurs just a handful of times; compound verbs such as epaischunomai – ἐπαισχύνομαι – appear more frequently.)

 

Another noticeable image of shame is seen in Ezekiel 16. In this lengthy metaphor, the prophet describes how God saved the nation of Israel from a pathetic state, bejewelled and glorified her, wedded her and showered her with status and honours, entering into a special relationship with her from among the peoples of the earth. But she did not remember where she came from or honour her relationship with God.

 

The kingdom of Judah, having become proud of her wealth, beauty and status, began to give sexual favours left and right. She also created sexually perverse images, which she celebrated. The insanity descended lower. Shamelessly, she opened her legs in public places to indulge in debase pleasures with passersby. These deeds, which ought to have aroused a sense of shame in her, were committed in a high-handed or brazen manner, parading her perversion. She also murdered her own children, in sacrifices to false gods.

 

God says that the southern kingdom of Judah was worse than the northern kingdom of Israel and worse, even, then Sodom, whom Ezekiel calls Judah’s sisters. (When you have an intimate relationship with the Lord, you have far greater responsibility for living righteously.) The metaphor covers many sins of Judah, including the making of graven images as idols, child sacrifice and sexual immorality. The prophet then calls upon Judah to feel the sense of shame that she ought, saying: “Since you have sinned more abominably than they, they appear righteous in comparison. So be ashamed and bear your disgrace, because you have made your sisters look righteous” (Eze 16:52). In Hebrew, the call to her to be ashamed uses the verb bosh (בושׁ). (It is related to the word we saw in Genesis 2.) This command was translated into Greek in the ancient translation of the Old Testament using the same word we encountered in Genesis 2, aischunomai (αἰσχύνομαι), which in turn is related to Paul’s term in Rom 1. The proper response to sin is shame, for it can lead to repentance. Shame is especially appropriate for sins that involve nudity.

 

An interesting example comes from Isaiah 50. The speaker says that the Lord God has given him an instructed tongue to sustain the weary. God awakens this person morning after morning, teaching him his truths. (Think of Jesus going to lonely places to pray, in the wee hours of the morning.) God opens this person’s ears. And he is not rebellious, but boldly speaks Gods words to others. The results, however, are disastrous. Some strike his face. Others pull out the hairs of his beard. He is spat upon and disgraced.

 

But, Isaiah states a bold confidence in his God, who will deliver this mistreated teacher of truth from disgrace: “But the Lord GOD helps me; therefore I have not been disgraced; therefore I have set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame” (Isaiah 50:7, ESV). No matter how much disrespect is heaped upon him, he’s confident that the Lord will not let him, in the end, be put to shame. God will honour him.

 

The word here for being put to shame, in Hebrew, is bosh (בושׁ). It got translated in the ancient Greek version of Isaiah with the word aischunomai (αἰσχύνομαι). Here a painful experience of great loss of social status does not lead to a sense of shame for the speaker. Rather, with a heart full of confidence in God as the ultimate judge and deliverer, he continues on with his calling, without fear of the social consequences.

 

The prophecy of mistreatment, of course, calls out Jesus’ name: betrayed, abandoned by friends, deprived of justice, injuriously spat upon and mistreated – yet confident in the ultimate deliverance his Father will give him.

 

No student is greater than his master. If it happened to Jesus, we should pray to God to have the strength so we will not flee, if such danger of shameful treatment were to threaten us.

 

Hebrew words for shame are translated dozens of times in the ancient Greek version of the Scriptures with the term aischunomai (αἰσχύνομαι) or a compound verb, built off this one, kataischunomai (καταισχύνομαι). It won’t be possible here to look at them all. The specific word that Paul uses in Romans 1, epaischunomai(ἐπαισχύνομαι) appears only a few times in the Greek Old Testament.

 

Turning to the New Testament, all the three related words just mentioned appear there. Presumptuous attitudes and behaviours can have disastrous consequences. They can lead to the experience of shame. Jesus brings this point to the fore in a parable about a man who intentionally takes a distinguished seat at a banquet, though it was not offered him. In the end, this does not turn out well. Someone of greater social importance arrives and the presumptuous man is forced by the host to move to a far less distinguished spot. Jesus describes the scenario like this: “…then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place” (Luke 14:9, ESV). The word for shame, aischune (αἰσχύνη), a noun, is closely related to the term Paul uses in Romans 1. It seems that this public shaming takes place in the presence of everyone at the event (see Luke 14:10).

 

In this case, the shame is to be expected and is fitting. In other instances, though, the shame referred to, though many might think it is right, is actually inappropriate. For example, though many in the hall of faith (Hebrews 11) experienced a lack of honour and abuse, this did not lead to a sense of shame on God’s part. Not at all. He delighted in their faithfulness to him, despite their shameful mistreatment. The author says it this way: “But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city” (Hebrews 11:16, ESV).

 

The word here is the same as Paul’s word in Romans 1, epaischunomai (ἐπαισχύνομαι). The author indicates that we might have expected God to be ashamed of these seeming losers. But the opposite is true. In his eyes they have great esteem. (It reminds us of God’s of words to Samuel, as he tried to discern which of Jesse’s sons would become king: God told the prophet not to see as humans do, for we look at the outward appearance of a person, but God looks at the heart.)

 

Jesus describes a type of shame that is not at all appropriate: “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Matthew 8:38, ESV). The One who is worthy of all honour does not take it lightly when those who profess to follow him are ashamed of him, because of the pressures found in a sinful generation they live among. If these followers persist in being ashamed of their Lord and what he teaches, then he will, eventually, be ashamed of them. The context, though, will later be decisive and with everlasting consequences. In both cases here, the word for being ashamed is epaischunomai (ἐπαισχύνομαι), the same one that Paul uses in Romans 1.

 

One episode sticks out in my mind as particularly salient with regard to being ashamed of Jesus. It comes in the Gospel of Mark. A young man, a follower of our Christ, is so ashamed of being associated with Jesus that, when a violence-bent crowd arrives in the Garden of Gethsemane, he seeks to run from the scene with such vigour that he even allows his opponents to strip him of his clothes. He makes his escape in the nude (Mark 14:51–52). The image is stark.  He is less concerned about the public shame of being naked than the shame – and danger – that comes with being associated with Jesus. May that not be our lot! And may God mercifully restore anyone who has come close to that kind of shameful embarrassment of Jesus in the public sphere. May God restore such individuals with greater ability to stand for him and have a more intimate connection with Jesus than they have ever known or even hoped for! May God have mercy on us all.

 

We have all been ashamed of Jesus and his words, I imagine, at one point or another, in big or small ways. But, of course, there is always forgiveness. The important part is change. If we have been ashamed of Jesus and his words, we can always confess this and turn around and do what we were doing formerly. We can bear the name of Christ with honour. Similarly, we can hear his words and do them – this is the only reasonable thing to do, when we hear the true teachings of the Lord of Glory.

 

This brings us full circle. Paul states confidently and loudly at the opening of his grand epistle to the church in Rome that he is not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus – for it is God’s power. From this point, Paul moves on to describe what the Gospel is. He does this for a substantial portion of writing (eight chapters, we would call it now).

 

He begins with foundation stone number one: all are sinners, all have fallen very short of God’s glory. Now here’s where the rubber meets the road, I believe, for us today. So please stick with me.

 

Speaking first to the Gentile world, Paul brings two key examples to the fore. The first is idolatry. Pagans reject the one true God and worship creatures, images made of beasts and humans, for example. They deny God’s existence, though his everlasting power and divine nature – invisible attributes – can be perceived, Paul says, since the creation of the world.

 

Atheist scientists – those who ostensibly study the beginning of life, the earth and the heavens – reject God today at an astounding level. And, in the West, which formerly had a Christian majority, we increasingly see idolatry entering into the mainstream of society, under the guise of multicultural music, wellness activities and the like. The idolatrous origins and associations of the practices that are widely adopted are downplayed. Even idols, such as Buddha statues, or other religious objects employed in pagan worship, such as those traditionally used by indigenous shamanism, are increasingly found in homes and in the public arena. These are practices and abominable objects that people ought to ashamed of. Instead, those in the pagan world are proud of them. The Gospel of Christ calls sinners to leave these sinful practices and return to the One True God. And Paul is not ashamed to speak about it openly.

 

Then, as a second prime example of sin, Paul raises the topic of same-sex sexuality. This type of sexuality is a perversion, he says, categorically. It stems from a depraved mind. Its existence among pagans is a result of their denying God’s existence. It’s unnatural. It is also, in itself, a form of punishment. Paul says this: “Because of this, God gave them over to degrading passions, for their females exchanged the natural relations for those contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, abandoning the natural relations with the female, were inflamed in their desire toward one another, males with males committing the shameless deed, and receiving in themselves the penalty that was necessary for their error” (Romans 1:26–27, ESV).

 

Paul speaks about both female-to-female sexuality and male-to-male sexuality. Even the desires and passions for same-sex sexuality are inappropriate. He speaks of a shameless deed, though the word here (aschemosune – ἀσχημοσύνη) is not related to his earlier term, used to describe that he is not ashamed of God’s Gospel. The individuals involved in same-sex sexuality, Paul indicates, ought to be totally ashamed of their passions and actions. But they are not. Rather, they persist in their pursuit, being inflamed with their same-sex desires.

 

Paul uses language that draws on the creation account in Genesis 1. He speaks about “females” and “males,” though he might have used words for “women” and “men.” (See an earlier blog post on the terms for “male” and “female.”) In Genesis, God creates humanity in his image, specifically as “male” and “female.” So, Paul is indicating that same-sex sexuality goes against the order of creation itself and, with it, the foundational nature of humans as made in God’s image – in complementarity, beauty and community.

 

Paul goes on to describe a crescendo – or, more precisely, a great descent into depravity – which culminates with a celebration of what is evil. After speaking of widespread ruthlessness, murder and the invention of new kinds of evil, to name a few, Paul says, “Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:32, ESV). This is the climax of Paul’s indictment of the pagan world and its godlessness – the conclusion of chapter 1. The ultimate stage of evil in pagan society is not only that evil and lawlessness is tolerated, but also it is celebrated. And don’t we see that, quite glaringly, today? This is perhaps nowhere more evident than with same-sex sexuality (recently, transgenderism has also been added to the mix). This is the very vice that Paul showcases in his display of what the state of sinful humanity is in the pagan world.

 

For Paul being unashamed of the Gospel is being unashamed of speaking truthfully about sin, about attitudes and deeds that ought to inspire shame in those who share in them, but, in fact, are boosted up and displayed with pride. And Paul’s approach here is every bit in line with that of Jesus’ approach. Jesus spoke loudly and clearly to sin – but also compassionately. And he was no push-over when it came to sexuality. Like his relative John the Baptist, Jesus was fully against things such as alleged “no-fault” divorce. And he condemned lustful thoughts and passions, too, like Paul. Even desiring to commit adultery is, for Jesus, a grave sin.

 

Jesus was also very, very merciful to sinners, inviting all to turn from sin and receive him. This is his great display of compassion and love – not to leave people in darkness about what their sin is, but to boldly and compassionately confront their wrongs, so that they can be set free from the perpetual trap of sin. For those who remain in his teaching, they become free indeed (John 8:36)! 

 

But, as for his followers, Jesus gave a stern warning, as we have seen. If anyone is ashamed of Jesus’ teaching, he will, eventually, if they do not repent, be ashamed of them. May that not be the case for us!

 

You see, the Gospel speaks to sin, first, before offering the solution in the Messiah’s merciful gift of forgiveness, through his self-sacrificial gift – for all who will believe. Repentance means abandoning passions, behaviour and speech that lead to futility and self-destruction. It means returning to God’s original design for human flourishing. It is the way to reconnect with God, the giver of all good things.

 

But how can someone repent and believe in God, unless a servant of Jesus helps him or her to see clearly what sin is? And, Paul makes it clear, same-sex sexuality is about as morally corrupt and evil, in terms of human passions and actions, as can be found.  

 

I want to make this very clear: to not be ashamed of the Gospel means to not be ashamed to call same-sex sexuality out as sin. And to be embarrassed to speak about same-sex sexuality as sin is to be ashamed of the Gospel. (True for same-sex desire and deed.) The logic of Paul’s description of the sinful pagan world in Romans 1, following his bold, unashamed proclamation of the power of God in the Gospel, leads to this conclusion.

 

Paul does not mince words. Do you? If yes, there is a more excellent way.

 

There is power in the proclaimed Word of God. It does not come back void. The power is in the message itself. Jesus gave his life to save sinners. He was opposed and unjustly executed. But God defended him, raising him back to life, then exalting him to heaven, where he is continually active, with a passion to reconcile all humans back to God. This truth gave Paul great confidence. And he knew the truth, intimately, from personal experience.

 

When Jesus confronted Paul on the road to Damascus, Jesus did not mince words. He said boldly: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4, ESV). Jesus called sin out. This undoubtedly helped Paul to begin to see the light. Previously, he was in serious darkness. The spoken word of Jesus helped his mind to begin to understand the depth of the sin that he was in.

 

Later, while a prisoner, speaking to a Roman official, Festus, as well as to king Agrippa, Paul recounted this event. He recalled Jesus’ words, commissioning him, at the very moment of his speaking convicting words about Paul’s sins — “But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’” (Acts 26:16–18, ESV)

 

Paul gets blinded by the light in this encounter with Jesus. It symbolizes the great darkness he has been in, separated from God (whom he thought he was serving). But at the same moment that he receives this chastisement, he is given a most profound commissioning. A great ray of hope enters his heart. He has been chosen by God for this special mission.

 

And what is he commissioned to do? He is to help people move from darkness to light, from the clutches of the power of Satan to the kingdom of God. And doing this entails calling sin out for what it is.

 

So, Paul became unashamed to call sin “sin.” Doing this, he knew from personal experience, is part of the power of the Gospel. “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” Paul can say in a later letter, “of whom I am the foremost” (1 Timothy 1:15, ESV). The good news is only good news, if, through it, God truly saves sinners from their sin.

 

Incidentally, when Jesus began to preach the good news, namely that the kingdom of God has come near, he called people to repent. Jesus made it clear that repentance, coupled with belief, is the key to entering into the kingdom of heaven. Without repentance, the door stays shut. It is worth repeating, then, that when we don’t clearly tell people what sin is, so that they can flee from it, we effectively keep them blinded, so that they cannot experience God’s grace.

 

In summary, our look into Paul’s famous statement about being unashamed of the Gospel, the power of God, has allowed us to understand that there is an appropriate place for shame in our lives. It is shame that should accompany our actions, when we do things that are sinful. It is not appropriate for us to experience shame however, when we speak the truth about the Gospel – which includes speaking openly and directly to sin, whatever the types of sins might be.

 

At the same time, by looking at the opening of the letter to the Romans, we have learned that the power of God should give us renewed confidence to speak openly and directly to same-sex sexuality, calling it out as sin. And that power of God is the Gospel itself. Same-sex sexuality as sin should, naturally, bring about great shame. Sometimes, when hearts are hardened, though, they need loving, direct confrontation to wake them up. This does not mean condemning people, not offering them hope. On the contrary, just as Jesus confronted Paul on the road to Damascus about his sin – but at the same time offered him amazing hope and destiny – that is what we must do when we speak to sin by sharing the Gospel.

 

We need to call people into their true destiny, what they have been created for: the intimacy that they are longing for, which they can find in a natural family, in the body of Christ (through friendships with other believers and mentor-disciple relationships) and in the Holy Spirit coming to live inside them. By the Holy Spirit, God himself comes to dwell inside a person – there is nothing more intimate than that. And also there is the great hope – the eternal hope of being united with Christ, the true lover of our souls, without any shame or any lack of knowledge about who we are, but with the greatest vulnerability. And in Him we have the unshakable hope of being received exactly as we are for eternity. Is this not great news?! Who would not long for that?

 

And if you have been hurt over and over in relationships and you feel like you have been – to use a phrase from a song – you got addicted to a losing game. And you kept putting your money in. And you got bankrupt. If that is your experience, come to Jesus, who will give you true intimacy and love you for who you are. You will not have to wear a mask around him. Wherever you’ve been, whatever you’ve done – it doesn’t matter how bad it’s been, it doesn’t matter if you feel like you could never even admit it to anybody – Jesus will accept you exactly as you are!

 

I’ve had panic attacks from things that I have done that I regret and I can’t go back and undo them. But in my darkest moments, in the middle of the night, when no one was there, Jesus was there. And he loved me – it’s amazing, he does it in a way that you know it’s him. He loved me and it was so pure that I was too afraid to let him embrace me as much as he wanted. It was too good – I thought, how can this be real? He is that good.

 

Won’t you open up your defences to him? You think you were born that way? No. And even if you feel that there is something that is immutable – he can change it. (He changed Paul from being a violent man to a peaceful one, who even joined the very community he had been trying to tear apart.) Jesus wants you to come into your true destiny. Won’t you let him help you do that?

 

Do you want a new life – and a host of new relationships that are safe and true, including, above all, an intimate relationship with God, the loving Father who created you and gave you your destiny? Then say this prayer (and believe what you are saying, in the depths of your heart). “God, I admit that I have been living a life of sin, including my same-sex sins. I accept your free gift of forgiveness and grace. Start something new in me, something beautiful – of your own choosing. I give up living for me. Fulfill in my life the original, good destiny you have planned for me. I believe that Jesus is your son and the Lord of all. I believe that his execution and resurrection have made the way for me to be reunited with you. Thank you so much.”

 

If you have prayed this prayer, please contact me at jordash@omilein.org

 

Unashamedly proclaiming the Gospel produces results. Pastors: do you want to see your congregations filled with new believers? Proclaim the Gospel boldly, without shame. In his first letter to the congregation in Corinth, Paul says clearly that some of the believers used to be involved in same-sex sexuality – now, however, they no longer are. They have been washed, made holy and made righteous by the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 6:9–11). The good news is that God makes all things new, through the precious blood of Jesus. That is truly good news – for all who will believe!

 

 

Let us finish with a song, bringing the verse that encapsulates believers’ unashamed proclamation of the Gospel to all, Jew and Gentile. Here, again, is Romans 1:16 –

 

οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον· δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι.

 

Learn Greek already in seminary? But forgot everything? We can help…

Male and female – ΑΡΣΕΝ and ΘΗΛΥ

In today’s blog post, we will look at two words. They are the words corresponding to English “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) and “female” (ΘΗΛΥ). These two words appear together in nine chapters in the Old Testament and four in the New Testament. Let’s look at them all.

(Note you can listen to this blog post as a podcast, here.)

 

In the Old Testament, they appear together only in the first three books, Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus. The first time the words appear is, of course, in the Bible’s opening chapter.

 

Of all of creation, humanity is unique, privileged. We are created in God’s image, according to his own likeness. And at precisely this moment, the Scriptures add, we are created male and female. This is the three-part statement of God creating us (Genesis 1:27; Jewish Publication Society):

“And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

 

Here it is in the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (this is the Rahlfs and Hanhart edition of the Septuagint):

καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατ᾽ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυἐποίησεν αὐτούς.

 

The Greek word for “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) translates the Hebrew word zachar, while the Greek word for “female” (ΘΗΛΥ) translates the Hebrew word n’qevah. We’ll see that this same translation of the two words occurs over and over for the Old Testament in Greek. In fact, for all ten instances in Genesis where these two words appear together, they come as a phrase “male and female.” The same Greek phrase (ΑΡΣΕΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΗΛΥ) is used. It typically represents the repeated Hebrew phrase (zachar unqevah).

 

Following this statement of God’s creation of humanity, God gives the blessing and command for humanity to procreate and produce new life according to our own kind. Both male and female are necessary for this vision of family-building, population growth and filling of the earth.

 

A very similar statement of the origin and nature of humanity is made in chapter five. It is re-stated that humanity was created in God’s likeness, as male and female, specifically. So, the basic point is reiterated and, as a result, underscored. Both males and females are made in God’s image. There is no third gender or gender spectrum. The options are binary. And it is glorious. (Genesis does not say, for example, that we are created, young and old or big and small, or fast and slow, or some other such pairing — but only that as male and female we are created in God’s image.)

 

In fact, here, Adam’s son, Seth, looks like Adam, he is born in his likeness, according to his image. We see that the image of God is transferred from parents to children, through the process of sexual intimacy and procreation. The implication is that every human being on the planet has received God’s image, through the crucial act of male-to-female intercourse – that is, a sexual act according to the laws established at creation. Abiding by the laws of creation permits the continuance of the creational process.

 

Next, we see the words for “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) and “female” (ΘΗΛΥ) occurring multiple times in the flood story. They come as a phrase, “male and female.”  It appears twice in chapter six and six times in chapter seven. (Bear in mind that twice in Genesis 7:2, the Greek words represent another Hebrew pair, namely “man” and “woman.” In two other instances in this section, the Greek phrase does not correspond to anything in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament that is known to us from the Masoretic tradition – the version used as an authority by Jews today.) The two Greek words occur here, together, in more concentrated frequency than anywhere else in the Bible. God is making a point.

                                                          

Because of the exceedingly profound sinfulness of those on earth, God is grieved in his heart to the extent that he determines to wipe out all humanity and even all living creatures, except for the tiniest remnant. We can note that the earth’s inhabitants are oblivious of their sinful state, their rebellion against God. (Jesus draws this point to the fore, when he teaches on the flood in Luke 17.)

 

God is prepared to spare humanity and the other creatures from total extinction. He instructs Noah to bring a “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) and “female” (ΘΗΛΥ) of every species into the specially crafted oceangoing vessel.

After the cataclysm has passed and the waters subside, God re-creates, in a sense, the entire world. The earth once again comes up out of the waters, just as it did during creation, in Genesis 1. Plants begin to grow again, just as in the beginning. And humans and animals appear upon the earth once more.

 

All of the creatures come out of the ark as “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) and “female” (ΘΗΛΥ). God will never wipe out the earth’s inhabitants with flood waters again. He gives a rainbow as a sign securing his compassionate promise.

 

Because every creature comes out of the ark, including humans, as male and female, it is abundantly evident that there are two genders – and only that. This is God’s good design. This is God’s second creation, as it were, of the whole earth. And he makes it unmistakable that all land animals and birds are male and female – nothing more. It is good. No, it is very good.

 

In chapter one of Exodus, we see our two words again. The Egyptians have a wicked plot to rid the world of Israelite families. (Here, though, Greek ΑΡΣΕΝ and ΘΗΛΥ translate a different pair of Hebrew words, meaning “boy” or “son” and “girl” or “daughter.”) When babies are born to Israelite parents, the males are to be killed and the females kept alive. If the plan had succeeded, this would have been a sure way to wipe out all of Abraham’s descendants, having them intermarry with other ethnicities and disappear.

 

We have already looked at 12 of the 19 times in the Torah (Pentateuch) that the two words appear in the same verse. The remainder occur in Leviticus. The two instances in chapter 3 pertain to animal sacrifices which may be male or female.

 

In chapter 12, Moses talks about the sacrificial worship of God that is fitting following a mother’s giving birth to a child, whether male or female. (We see here, then, that a human being is recognized as male or female from birth, from the get-go.)

 

In chapter 15, we hear about regulations for those with persistent bleeding issues, whether male or female. The remainder of instances pertain to special, sacred pledges of financial donations to the temple, which could be made for males or females of different ages (chapter 27). (The gist of this portion of scripture for us today is not least of all that human beings are either male or female, from birth to old age.)

 

Before looking at the New Testament, I’ll just mention, parenthetically, that two additional times in the Pentateuch (Torah) the pair of Hebrew words for “male” (zachar) and “female” (n’qevah) occurs. (One is in Numbers 5 and the other is in Deuteronomy 4.) In these cases, the ancient Greek translation gives adjectives with longer forms related to ΑΡΣΕΝ and ΘΗΛΥ, namely ΑΡΣΕΝΙΚΟΝ and ΘΗΛΥΚΟΝ.

 

Finally, we come to the four chapters in the New Testament, two of which contain Jesus’ words on marriage. In both Matthew 19 and Mark 10, we have an account of Jesus’ dialogue with Pharisees, who want to know if no-fault divorce is acceptable. As the accounts are similar, I will focus on Matthew’s version.

 

When Jesus uses the words “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) and “female” (ΘΗΛΥ), he is actually citing Genesis 1, the initial appearance of these words in the Scriptures. He asks a question (Matthew 19:4 - I’m citing the NRSV):

“He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”…?’”

 

The original Greek says this (Tyndale House Greek New Testament version):

Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι ὁ κτίσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς;

 

Jesus then cites from Genesis 2, where the first instance of marriage occurs. Jesus notes also that God (this is Matthew 19:5 in the NRSV):

“…said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’….”

 

Jesus makes a connection between the first two chapters of Genesis, which articulate two renditions of the creation account, each with a different focus. Jesus makes it clear that God’s creation of “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) and “female” (ΘΗΛΥ), in chapter one, is crucial to the understanding of marriage in chapter 2. Without the former, the latter does not take place. Moreover, the creation of male and female is critical to the identity of humans.

 

To subvert this identity is to rebel against God, to one’s own peril. God help us, given the rage that many nations today have against the simple truth and reality of two unchangeable genders. Yet God gives more grace – for all who will turn to him.

Rebelling against God’s design for the two genders comes up in Paul’s writings too. In the opening chapter of his letter to the Romans, Paul uses the terms “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) and “female” (ΘΗΛΥ). He shows what humanity is like, when humans’ thinking and passions are out of order. First, he refers to homosexuality, generally, and to lesbianism in particular (Romans 1:26 – this is the Lexham English Bible version):

“Because of this, God gave them over to degrading passions, for their females exchanged the natural relations for those contrary to nature…”

 

The Greek reads like this (THGNT):

Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας· αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν…

 

Paul speaks, interestingly, about “females” (in Greek it is a particular plural form of ΘΗΛΥ). He does not speak about women, per se, but females. Paul’s language draws on the creation account. He highlights the fact that this sexual activity is clearly a break with the intent of the created order that God established at the beginning of human existence, at creation. He also states that natural sexual relations are abandoned for unnatural ones.

 

Next, Paul speaks to male homosexuality (Romans 1:27 – again from the LEB):

“…and likewise also the males, abandoning the natural relations with the female, were inflamed in their desire toward one another, males with males committing the shameless deed, and receiving in themselves the penalty that was necessary for their error.”

 

Here is the original Greek (THGNT):

ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι, καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.

 

Paul speaks consistently about “males” (in Greek, plural forms of ΑΡΣΕΝ are found). In fact, he uses the word three times, but never uses the word “men.” He also speaks of “female” (again, a form of ΘΗΛΥ). Males forsake natural sexual relations with females for passionate, degrading sexual relations with one another. Again, the language of “male” and “female” draws those who hear his letter back to the creation account in Genesis. But there is more to it.

 

Paul says that “males” commit indecent acts with “males.” Paul does not say here “men” with “men” or even, God forbid, “men” with “boys.” The emphasis is on maleness. Categorically, Paul insists, males should not be with other males, sexually. Period. This means that Paul is not thinking about power structures (such as master and slave) or age differences (older man and younger man) or, God forbid, pedophilia, which was the preferred Greek form of homosexuality. (And some ancient Romans, too, took up this horrible passion.) Rather, Paul is speaking, categorically, to all sexual relations among “males.” This is a blanket statement condemning homosexuality.

 

The same is true regarding what Paul says about lesbianism. Only, it is stronger when it comes to gay homosexuality, because of the repeated, insistent use of “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ). Probably he focusses in on this more, because male-to-male sexual activity was so much more prevalent in the ancient Roman world.

 

Due to Paul’s use of language regarding both lesbian and gay homosexuality, he repeatedly points back to Genesis 1, where God creates humanity in his own image, male and female. Because humans have rejected God, Paul says, their civilization is given over to same-sex sexuality. It is a disgrace, shameful. (It is nothing to be proud about.)

 

Before we look at the final occurrence of “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) and “female” (ΘΗΛΥ) in the New Testament, I want to address one instance in the Old Testament where “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) alone appears. I’ll make this exception in our dual words study, because of the thematic link.

 

In Leviticus 18:22, God says (Jewish Publication Society version):

“Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.”

 

Here is the ancient Greek translation of this verse (Rahlfs and Hanhart edition):

καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν.

 

In the ancient Greek translation of the Scriptures, the word for “male” is, of course, ΑΡΣΕΝ. (The underlying Hebrew word, naturally, is zachar.) Note what is and is not said. As in other verses in this context, in Hebrew the command given is in the singular and masculine from: that is to say, God gives an instruction to a man, saying “you, man, should not do such and such.” Here God commands a man to not lie with another “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ), as he might lie with a “woman.” God does not say “man” but “male.” And he does not say “female” but “woman.” Why?

 

There are probably two, interconnected reasons. First, the language of “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ), as we have seen, is rare and creational. It recalls humanity’s being made in God’s image. We should not mess with what God has called “very good.”

 

Second, “male” covers everyone in that gender, whether child, teenager, young adult, mature adult or elderly man. This is a categorical prohibition. A man and a woman may come together in matrimony and, after that, have sexual relations. But a man must never have such relations with a “male,” neither a man nor, God forbid, a boy. All such relations, categorically, God says, are an abhorrence.

 

The last paired instance of “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) and “female” (ΘΗΛΥ) in the Bible occurs in Galatians. Paul asserts boldly that in the Lord Jesus Christ, there is neither Jew, nor gentile, slave nor free, nor “male and female.” The phrase about gender recalls Genesis 1. What is Paul saying?

  

In Christ there is a new creation. It began with his own resurrection, as a first fruit. And it is continuing to grow. In time, the new creation will have its full flowering – as the resurrection of all takes place, the judgement of all and then the transformation of all of Christ followers into bodies of resplendent glory. In the meantime, we live in the tension of both “now” and “but not yet.” In the age to come, there will be no marriage. As followers of Christ, will be like the angels. Men and women, as joint heirs, will receive our inheritance in the Messiah. And we need to live with that reality always before us. (Peter instructs husbands to never lord anything over their wives, because in the fullness of the Messiah, when the new age will dawn, we will simply be joint heirs.)

 

For this reason, though there is Jew and Gentile now, also male and female (and in some cultures, slave and free), we must treat one another with the utmost dignity, knowing that in God’s overall plan — and eternity is far longer than this short handbreadth of time on the earth during this age — everyone will be rewarded according to his or her own deeds. And there is no partiality. And yet we will also all be joint heirs, together with Christ Jesus. What an amazing privilege! It leaves us speechless, as we reflect on the profound graciousness and generosity that God has shown us.

 

Let us treat one another with respect, then. And let us honor all humans, male and female, just as God has created us. Let us neither hate nor despise anyone. Let us have mercy on all, as Jude instructs us to do. And, amongst ourselves as Christians, let us teach clearly what God’s good intent is for humanity, created as male and female (just two, unchangeable genders) and given the gift of marriage (between one man and one woman). Let us also praise God for his creation, a work of his genius, because it is very good.

 

As always, I leave you off with a song. Here are the words of the Messiah, as he refers to the first mention of “male” (ΑΡΣΕΝ) and “female” (ΘΗΛΥ), in Genesis one. Again, this is the original Greek of Matthew 19.4 –

 

οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι ὁ κτίσας ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς;

Family

God loves families! Don’t you too? After all, families were his brilliant idea. Today we will look at the Greek word ΟΙΚΟΣ (pronounced ukos, with a French “u” or German “ü”). It means both “family” and “house.”

(Note you can listen to this blog post as a podcast, here.)

 

The first time the word ΟΙΚΟΣ appears in the Scriptures, it refers to a family, that is a household. In the first verse of Genesis 7, God speaks to Noah (this is the NRSV):

“Then the LORD said to Noah, ‘Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation.’”

 

In the Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, we have this (in the Rahlfs and Hanhart edition):

Καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Νωε Εἴσελθε σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ οἶκός σου εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν, ὅτι σὲ εἶδον δίκαιον ἐναντίον μου ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ.

 

God wanted to save Noah and Noah’s family from the deluge that was coming. So, he announced to Noah that it was time for him and his “family” (ΟΙΚΟΣ), to enter the massive wooden vessel that Noah had built.

 

The word ΟΙΚΟΣ here translates the original, Hebrew word “bayit.” Bayit, too, can mean either “house” or “family.” This is in essence the first time that bayit appears in the Bible. (Though in the one earlier instance, it acts with another word as a kind of prepositional phrase, together meaning “within.”)

 

This idea of God saving Noah and his family is not lost on the followers of Jesus who penned the writings of the New Testament, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The author of the letter to the Hebrews says this (11:7 — I’m citing the ESV).

“By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”

 

The Greek reads like this (I’m using the Tyndale House Greek New Testament version):

Πίστει χρηματισθεὶς Νῶε περὶ τῶν μηδέπω βλεπομένων εὐλαβηθεὶς κατεσκεύασεν κιβωτὸν εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ, δι᾽ ἧς κατέκρινεν τὸν κόσμον καὶ τῆς κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνης ἐγένετο κληρονόμος.

 

Noah constructed the ark in order to save his “family” (ΟΙΚΟΣ). And save them he did. In fact, we have all descended from this one man. We all belong to Noah’s “family” (ΟΙΚΟΣ).

 

Sometimes both meanings may be at play. In the book of Joshua, Rahab, the prostitute, hides two Israelite spies in her “house.” As a result, she is given a promise of deliverance for her and all those in her father’s “family.” In both cases Greek ΟΙΚΟΣ is used (and for both cases Hebrew bayit is originally employed, too.) The text makes it explicit that she, her father, her mother, her siblings and all that belonged to them were preserved because of Rahab’s faith-inspired actions.

 

Another notable, very early instance of ΟΙΚΟΣ is God’s call to Abram. God asks him to leave his land, his kindred and, specifically, his father’s “house” (ΟΙΚΟΣ). We learn elsewhere in the Scriptures that Abram’s father, Terah, was a polytheist (Joshua 24:2). So, too, was Abram, before receiving this call.

 

God wanted Abram to differentiate himself from his father’s household. He wanted to make Abram into a new family, for his own glory, the glory of the one and only true God.

If he did this, God promised, Abram would become a blessing and in him would be blessed all the world’s “tribes” (a Greek word other than ΟΙΚΟΣ is used, translating a Hebrew word other than bayit). These “tribes” are large extended families, great clans — social groups in which blood relationships are still known and characterize the collective whole.

 

Then a great irony takes place. It is a sign to all those who see Abram and Sarai and their “house,” traveling in the land of Canaan. They live in tents, while great and powerful nations around them live in fortified cities. But this is the family (ΟΙΚΟΣ) through which God will bring a blessing to all nations.

 

God makes a covenant with Abram – with a sign of circumcision, every male in his “house” must participate in. That is in Genesis 17.

 

Prospering in wealth, but without a child, Abraham and Sarah, then host three visitors from heaven. They announce that the following year the couple will have a child. Their “house,” family, will grow. At the same time, God does not want to keep secrets from Abraham concerning what he is about to do to Sodom and Gomorrah. He reveals his heart and deepest thoughts to Abraham regarding this momentous decision to destroy an entire people group – well, really, four cities, each with their own king.

 

God wants Abraham to teach his sons, to teach his family. If Abraham loves God, he will do what is just and righteous on the earth and he will teach his family to do the same. Justice means actions that fall in line with God’s intention in the created order. Here is God’s speech in Genesis 18 (verses 17–20 in the ESV):

“The LORD said, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.’ Then the LORD said, ‘Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave…’”

 

This call for Abraham to teach justice and righteousness to his family/house (his ΟΙΚΟΣ – again, translating the Hebrew word bayit) is contrasted with Sodom and the wasteful, unnatural sexuality that is practiced there – both rape and same-sex sexuality are in mind.

 

So, a “house” can be educated in God’s ways and discipled to do justice and righteousness, even when the surrounding culture or cultures promote values that are antithetical to God’s good ways, including in the important area of sexuality. 

 

A single individual can have a profound impact on his or her “house.” We’ve mentioned Rahab already. There are a number of examples from the New Testament. In chapter 16 of the book of Acts, Lydia’s profound response of faith to Paul’s proclamation of the good news about Jesus leads to her and her entire household (ΟΙΚΟΣ) to receive the Lord’s salvation. (The familial house and, related, the physical house then become receivers of others in great hospitality.)

 

A little later, in the same chapter, a man who had thrown Paul and Silas into prison and almost took his own life in the middle of the night, when he thought they had escaped after an earthquake, then heard the profound news of the gift of life through Jesus the Messiah. Then he, along with his entire “household” (ΟΙΚΟΣ), believed in the Lord Jesus, and was immersed in the waters of baptism at that very hour.

 

It is very important to God how we treat those in our families. May the Lord help us to generously honour, love, forgive and care for, as is appropriate, those in our families!

 

Instructing young Timothy in Ephesus on how to correctly lead the body of Christ there, Paul gives instructions on the qualifications of elders and deacons. Men in such roles must lead their own “houses” well, through sacrificial service (this is in 1 Timothy 3). If they do not, how can they conduct themselves appropriately in the “house” of God? You see, we are all brothers and sisters. So if we cannot treat members of our natural families well, we ought not be placed in positions of responsibility in God’s family.

 

It’s clear that God’s house, his dwelling, which used to be made of stone and precious metals, has been replaced by his new “house,” his “family.” Whoever believes in Jesus Christ has become born of God, a member of this new family, this new house.

 

Peter makes this point brilliantly, under inspiration of God’s Spirit. 1 Peter 2:5 says (ESV) —

“…you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

 

In Greek it says:

καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς θυσίας εὐπροσδέκτους θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

 

We are stones in God’s house (ΟΙΚΟΣ). (Also the word for being “built up” uses a verb that incorporates the word ΟΙΚΟΣ.)

 

He then describes how, in the Spirit, we are a chosen race, a holy nation, God’s own people (verse 9). The word ΟΙΚΟΣ is not used, but the concept of a nuclear family that has become as large as a nation is clear.

 

Looking back for a moment at Paul’s first letter to Timothy, we see a strong encouragement in chapter 5 for believers to look after their own “houses.” In this context, Paul is talking about widows, needing financial support.

 

Above, I said that “house” can also refer to a very large family, a nation. Now the word “house” did not appear with this sense in the context of Peter’s letter. But the idea was there. Let’s look at instances where both the idea and word appear.

 

Of course, not everyone born from Abraham — or Isaac even — were a part of the nation God chose to bring light to the world. (Ishmael and Esau were, of course, those that did not belong to the chosen people.) But all the twelve boys born to Jacob were part of Israel. Together, the twelve tribes that descended from them comprised the “house” of Jacob. As the Israelites arrive at Sinai, God gives instructions to Moses, addressing the people as Jacob’s “house” (ΟΙΚΟΣ translating bayit). That is at the beginning of Exodus 19.

 

Isaiah, the prophet, also calls the people of God the “house” of Jacob. For example, in chapter two he cries out to Jacob’s house, calling the people to abandon the practices of the East, which they have filled the land with, as they have forsaken the Lord.

 

The angel Gabriel announces to Mary that her first born son, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, will inherit the throne of David, reigning over the house (ΟΙΚΟΣ) of Jacob. This occurs in the first chapter of Luke.

 

In the same chapter, Luke, the doctor describes Joseph as a man from the “house” (ΟΙΚΟΣ) of David. Here our word has more the sense of “clan.” Zechariah, the priest, too, speaks of the “house” of David in the same way a little later in the chapter.

 

All of this talk of David’s “house” has its origin in the two prophetic books that go by Samuel’s name. In the 20th chapter of the first book, Jonathan makes a covenant of loyalty with the “house” (ΟΙΚΟΣ translating bayit) of David, even while Jonathan’s father’ Saul’ is king and in his mind has turned David into his enemy.

 

In book two, after David has become king, he longs to build a “house” (ΟΙΚΟΣ) meaning a temple – for God. God’s heart is so touched that he makes a promise to David –

God will build a “house” – meaning “family,” also “dynasty” – for David, to honour him. But the condition is clear, it will only last if David’s heirs follow God’s ways.

 

Of course, we are all beneficiaries of the great Heir of David’s “house”: Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem, city of David. He is the Lord and Saviour. God used Noah’s house, Abraham’s house, Jacob’s house and David’s house to bring us the Lord Jesus the Messiah. (He also used a very faithful young woman, who bore shame and misunderstanding, in order to bear the one who would take our shame and give understanding.)

 

Earlier this month, we looked at the Greek words for rain (ΥΕΤΟΣ) and for the rainbow (ΤΟΞΟΝ). We believe, don’t we, that the world’s flood truly occurred?

 

Now let us bring the word “house” or “family” (ΟΙΚΟΣ) to bear on this topic. It adds a very important element to the picture.

 

The first “house” (ΟΙΚΟΣ) in the Scriptures is a family hand-picked by God. And it follows God’s design. Sexuality before the flood was out of order. Human women had been bedded by celestial beings. Giants were born. It was time for proper houses once again. So, God showed very clearly what his intent was for human sexuality. It is a powerful gift — but it must be used wisely and honorably to receive God’s blessing.

 

God showed his original intent for human sexuality – more importantly, for “houses” – in this way. First, through natural law. God commanded that Noah bring into the ark pairs of every animal species. So, they came, two by two ­– one male and one female. (Different species are not meant to have sexual relations between them.)

 

Next God made a special point through the human “house” he preserved – this is the first instance where our word OIKOΣ (and also, in essence, Hebrew bayit) is used. There is a father and a mother. And their three married children are in male-female relationships. So, four human pairs were saved during the flood – four monogamous couples, with one male and one female per couple. So, in fact, all humans and all animals going into the ark are male-female pairings.

 

Friends, there could hardly be a clearer, divinely initiated sign to demonstrate what proper pairing of sexual mates looks like. (Everyone and everything else was destroyed.) God does not want polygamy (or polyandry), nor does he want homosexuality. (Nor are we to have sexual relations with animals or celestial beings.) His design is for one man and one woman, in marriage. And it is a good design ­– in fact, it is “very good.”

 

Let’s believe that Noah existed, friends. Let’s believe that there was a flood. Let’s believe that the rainbow was given as a reminder of God’s mercy – it is for this reason that we all exist, descended from Noah. And let’s consider the profound way that God has impressed on history, through his preservation of that one family, our family, the importance and justice of male-female marriage.

 

Let’s understand that family is God’s design. If you are single great. Serve the Lord. If you are married build your house. Help your children grow up to build theirs, too. Just as God commanded Abraham to instruct his children in the Lord’s ways – to do justice and righteousness on the earth – teach your children the same.

 

Let’s not think that somehow sexuality is detached from family, from house building. Let’s preserve our families. And let’s reserve sexual intimacy for a married man and woman — the only pairing that can naturally build a house.

 

And if you are a married couple that cannot have children, the Lord bless you. I pray that the Lord will comfort you and that he will make you prolific, in every way that you serve him – including biologically, that is in house building.

 

I will leave you off with a song that incorporates the text of Genesis 7:1 in its ancient Greek translation. Once again, it is God’s call to Noah and all his house to enter the ark, as they will be saved because of his righteous.

 

Καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Νωε Εἴσελθε σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ οἶκός σου εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν, ὅτι σὲ εἶδον δίκαιον ἐναντίον μου ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ.

Man and woman – ΑΝΗΡ and ΓΥΝΗ

What is a man? What is a woman? What is marriage? And how would we know? In this blog post we will look at not one word, but two.

 

(Note you can listen to this blog post as a podcast, here.)

 

The Greek words for “man” (ΑΝΗΡ - pronounced “anair”) and “woman” (ΓΥΝΗ - pronounced “guneh,” with a French “u” or a German “ü”) first appear in the Scriptures in Genesis. In fact, they initially appear together, in chapter two, which provides an elaborate narration of how God creates the first man and woman.

 

God creates the man first, who begins humanity’s great task of caring for the earth. But, despite all of the pairs he sees in the animal kingdom – male and female in every species – there is no one suitable to him. He is lonely. And God says that it is not good for him to be alone. This is a deafening “not good” statement, after all the times God said “good,” “good” and “very good,” earlier, while creating the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

 

God causes Adam to fall into a deep sleep. He then takes one of Adam’s ribs and builds it into the first woman. When Adam awakens and sees Eve for the first time, he erupts into poetic utterance, speaking wonderfully about the amazing creature standing in front of him. It is an utterance of profundity, honour and delight. This is Gen 2:23 (I’m citing the Jewish Publication Society version):

“Then the man said,

            ‘This one at last

            Is bone of my bones

            And flesh of my flesh.

            This one shall be called Woman,

            For from man was she taken.’” 

And here it is in the Greek (citing the Rahlfs and Hanhart edition of the Septuagint):

καὶ εἶπεν Αδαμ Τοῦτο νῦν ὀστοῦν ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων μου καὶ σὰρξ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός μου· αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνή, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήμφθη αὕτη.

 

The Greek word here for “man” (ΑΝΗΡ) translates the Hebrew word ish. And the Greek word for “woman” (ΓΥΝΗ) translates the Hebrew word ishah. (In Hebrew, then, the words for man and woman even sound the same.) This is also the first time that these two Hebrew words appear in Genesis. (Note that ΑΝΗΡ appears in a slightly different grammatical form here. But ΓΥΝΗ appears in its basic form.)

 

So, the first time the words “man” and “woman” occur in the Scriptures, they appear in the description of the first recorded human speech. And they come in response to God’s greatest gift in the creation – the gift of companionship, the antidote to loneliness.

 

Of course, it is not just any companionship, it is marital companionship. This is another peculiar feature of Greek. The same words for “man” (ΑΝΗΡ) and “woman” (ΓΥΝΗ) are also the words for “married man” (so, husband) and for “married woman” (that is, wife). In fact, the same thing is largely true for the two Hebrew words which these Greek words translate. (There is an additional Hebrew word, though, that can also be translated as “married man” or “husband.”) This double meaning of ΑΝΗΡ and ΓΥΝΗ will be important for us to appreciate later. But for now, let’s keep going.

 

So, in the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, we frequently see the words ΑΝΗΡ (“man”) and ΓΥΝΗ (“woman”) referring, together, to all humanity. We see this, for example, in Numbers 6, where the Lord gives instructions for either a man or a woman to make a Nazarite vow. This covers everybody. There is no third gender or, somehow, people who are on an alleged gender “spectrum.” There is only this one, profound, binary distinction.

 

The same idea is seen in the New Testament. For example, in Acts 8, Saul acts violently against Christians, entering into people’ houses and dragging away “men” (ΑΝΔΡΕΣ – that is the plural form of ΑΝΗΡ) and “women” (ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΣ – the plural of ΓΥΝΗ) and committing them to prison.

 

A more uplifting example, found in the same chapter, concerns the people who respond warmly to Philipp’s preaching in Samaria. Both “men” and “women” believe the good news about Jesus and are baptized. Again the words ΑΝΔΡΕΣ and ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΣ are used. This means adults of both genders – covering all adults.

But the same two words can also refer to married men and women. For example, in Ephesians 5, Paul instructs “men” (ΑΝΔΡΕΣ) or “married men” to love their “women” (ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΣ) or “wives.” Both “women” and “wives” fit as English translations of ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΣ, just as “men” and “married men” or “husbands” would work for Greek ΑΝΔΡΕΣ.

 

In that example, we saw, of course, the plural forms of each word. Here’s an example with each word appearing in the singular. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul instructs believers who are married to nonbelievers to stay in the marriage, provided that their spouses will keep them. He asks this question (1 Corinthians 7:16 – in the ESV):

“For how do you know, wife (ΓΥΝΗ), whether you will save your husband (ΑΝΗΡ)?  Or how do you know, husband (ΑΝΗΡ), whether you will save your wife (ΓΥΝΗ)?”

 

In the original Greek we have it like this (Tyndale House Greek New Testament version):

τί γὰρ οἶδας, γύναι, εἰ τὸν ἄνδρα σώσεις; ἢ τί οἶδας, ἄνερ, εἰ τὴν γυναῖκα σώσεις;

 

(Bear in mind that the words we are concerned with are, in fact, appearing here in slightly different grammatical forms. So, we don’t hear ΓΥΝΗ and ΑΝΗΡ, exactly. But don’t let that bother you. It is an aspect of Greek that one can get familiar with over time.)

 

So, technically, we might render this phrase in English like this:

“For how do you know, woman (ΓΥΝΗ), if you will save your husband (ΑΝΗΡ)? Or how do you know, man (ΑΝΗΡ), if you will save your wife (ΓΥΝΗ)?”

 

At any rate, the meaning does not substantially change. What is important to note is that the concept of marriage is embedded in the awareness that God has made a “man” and a “woman.” So, embodied in the language itself is the idea that marriage requires one person from each sex. Marriage is not meant for two people of the same sex.

 

But, now let’s turn to the wise words of the Saviour. Jesus finds himself embroiled in a debate that was intense in his day ­– can one get divorced for any reason at all? The question is posed to him like this (Mark 10:2 – NRSV):

“Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man (ΑΝΗΡ) to divorce his wife (ΓΥΝΗ)?’”

 

In the original Greek we have it as follows:

καὶ προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα ἀπολῦσαι πειράζοντες αὐτόν.

 

(Again, the words ΓΥΝΗ and ΑΝΗΡ are there, but their forms are slightly altered, on account of grammatical reasons.)

 

How does Jesus answer this question? He goes back to the “beginning.” He says (Mark 10:6–9 – NRSV):

6 “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

 

Now this is a relatively long English citation. And I will not provide the Greek this time. However, we should note that Jesus cites Genesis twice, once from chapter one and once from chapter two. First, he notes that humans were made in God’s image, as “male” and “female” (and, God willing, I will get back to these two words on another occasion). Second, he brings up the phrase that follows just on the heels of the speech from Adam that we began this short study with. That is: a man joins his wife and the two become one flesh.

 

Now the word for “man” in Greek this time is different than ΑΝΗΡ, the one we have been looking at. But I will not let that detain us here. (The underlying word, in Hebrew, is still the same: ish.)

 

The key point I want to bring out is this. Jesus is not embarrassed by Genesis, at all. Quite the contrary, he intentionally goes there to find wisdom on what marriage is designed to be. And he sticks with the design. He does not deviate; nor does he innovate. 

 

Marriage is between a “man” (ΑΝΗΡ) and “woman” (ΓΥΝΗ). This is the way it was at the beginning. And this is the way it should stay, Jesus’ line of reasoning insists.

 

In an earlier blog post, we recently examined the word for “thorn plant” and, I believe, the study will have touched many of us deeply in our hearts. Was that true for you? It was a study that began in the Garden of Eden and culminated at Calvary. We believe, don’t we, that thorny plants first appeared on the earth, near the beginning, because of a curse? They originated as a direct result of the Fall, of human rebellion to God.

 

But, can we go back to the Garden of Eden and also study the words for “man” (ΑΝΗΡ) and “woman” (ΓΥΝΗ)? Can we follow the Master back to the beginning? He believes that God created “man” (ΑΝΗΡ) and “woman” (ΓΥΝΗ) to be “husband” (ΑΝΗΡ) and “wife” (ΓΥΝΗ). (The same is true for the Hebrew words ish and ishah.) Can we take Jesus at his word? Let’s follow his line of thought and humbly accept that God knows what is best. Marriage is designed for a man and a woman, just as only these two sexes, in reality, exist.

 

But wait, there’s one more point to draw out here. Remember Adam’s poetic proclamation of love and relational union in Eve, his woman? He states that the amazing human standing in front of him will henceforth be called “woman” (ΓΥΝΗ) because she has been taken out of “man” (ΑΝΗΡ). Did this really happen? Well, what does Paul say? In chapter eleven of his first letter to the Corinthians, the apostle to the Gentiles says (1 Corinthians 11:8 – this is the ESV):

“For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.”

 

The Greek says this:

οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικὸς ἀλλὰ γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός·

 

So, yes, Paul truly accepts the biblical account that, in the beginning, the first woman was created from organic material that God lovingly took out of the first man to fashion into his companion. And the original two then became one flesh, through marriage. Jesus’ teaching points in this very same direction.

 

Friends, we need to jettison the false idea of human evolution. It really has no place in Christian belief – in reality. We – men and women, boys and girls – have all been made in God’s image. (We’re not the product of some monkeys’ offspring allegedly developing beyond their natural means.) We should cherish the truth that we have been fashioned by God, directly, as image-bearers. Let’s not hide or reject this precious truth.

 

As always, I will leave off with a song. It is the ancient Greek translation of Adam’s speech in Genesis 2:23 in the Hebrew Scriptures. (And men – if you are married, you may consider singing this song as a sign of your sheer delight in your wife that God has graciously given to you and your gratitude to God for her.)     

Τοῦτο νῦν ὀστοῦν ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων μου καὶ σὰρξ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός μου· αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνή, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήμφθη αὕτη.

Tiny child – ΒΡΕΦΟΣ

Don’t you just love the Christmas story? I know, me too. We marvel at the unfathomable riches of God’s grace, mercy and love – that Jesus would deign to take on human flesh and dwell among us. Do you remember the sign given to the shepherds? They would find, lying in a feeding trough, a “child,” a ΒΡΕΦΟΣ (pronounced “brefos” – but note that the initial consonant is pronounced like the Spanish “b” or “v”; the lips don’t quite touch). What exactly is a ΒΡΕΦΟΣ anyway?

 

(Note you can listen to this blog post as a podcast, here.)

 

To better understand the word ΒΡΕΦΟΣ, often translated into English as “child,” we need to go to the New Testament. That is because the word never appears in the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures – not once.

 

The word ΒΡΕΦΟΣ appears just eight times in the New Testament. Let’s look at them all. We’ll start with the story of the Messiah’s birth. On the momentous night, the Angel of the Lord announced to the shepherds that a saviour – Messiah the Lord – had been born in Bethlehem, David’s City. And he added (this is Luke 2:12 in the King James Version):

“And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.”

Here is the Greek (citing the Tyndale House Greek New Testament):

καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν τὸ σημεῖον· εὑρήσετε βρέφος ἐσπαργανωμένον καὶ κείμενον ἐν φάτνῃ.

 

The sign was a baby, a ΒΡΕΦΟΣ, lying in a feeding trough. Then the shepherds rush into Bethlehem and see him – our Messiah – as a ΒΡΕΦOΣ, along with his mother Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:16). So, from these two instances, we see that ΒΡΕΦΟΣ can mean baby.

 

Next, let’s look at Jesus’ honoring of the little ones that come to him. There are a number of versions of this story. Matthew and Mark recall how children (a different Greek word is used) were brought to Jesus for him to give them a physical demonstration of his love. This is innocent and beautiful, isn’t it?

 

Luke recalls, specifically, that ΒΡΕΦΗ (pronounced “brefeh” — this is the plural of ΒΡΕΦΟΣ) were brought to him (Luke 18:15). Evidently, these little ones, then, were tiny children, babies and infants.

 

In the book of Acts, Luke relays Stephen’s speech, in which the murder of the young Israelite male babies by Egyptians is recalled. Again, the word ΒΡΕΦΟΣ is used, in the plural (ΒΡΕΦΗ), to describe the babies (Acts 7:19). From Exodus 1, we learn that these male babies were largely newborns.

 

There are just four instances left. Simon Peter encourages Christians to desire the pure milk from God’s word like newborn “babes,” using ΒΡΕΦΟΣ (1 Peter 2:2). Peter uses another word, a descriptive term, for “newborn,” showing clearly that ΒΡΕΦΟΣ has a wider range of meaning than just newborns.

 

But how wide is the range of meaning? Paul writes to Timothy saying that from his infancy, he has known the sacred writings. Paul says that from the time Timothy was a ΒΡΕΦΟΣ, he has known the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15). This means Timothy was intelligibly hearing scripture, from his mother and possibly others, at this age. To show comprehension of something, a person needs to speak or give a physical gesture. On average, children start talking between 12 and 18 months of age. Paul, then, could be speaking about Timothy’s earliest days from, say, a year-and-a-half old (or even possibly a bit older). Such a child is a toddler. But he might also have been referring to Timothy as an infant (one-year old and younger), if he meant that Timothy was comprehending scripture read to him, or possibly sung in his presence, as he responded with body language. It depends on what Paul had in mind.  

 

There are just two instances left. And these bring us back to the Christmas story. In chapter one of the Gospel account Luke wrote, he narrates a most joyous occasion of Mary, already carrying Jesus, coming to visit Elisabeth. When the two women meet, in an explosion of joy, Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit, even as the ΒΡΕΦΟΣ in her leaps in her womb. We read the following in Luke 1:41 (this is the World English Bible) –

 

“It happened, when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, that the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.”

 

The original Greek says this (I’m citing the Tyndale House Greek New Testament):

 

Καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλισάβετ.

 

So, what is in Elizabeth’s womb is a who, a ΒΡΕΦΟΣ. This unborn baby is none other than John the Baptizer. He is a person – but he won’t receive a name until the eighth day after he is born. I’ll pause the narrative for a moment. We know that Elizabeth was at least six-months pregnant (Luke 1:26), but not much more. Mary will stay at Zechariah and Elizabeth’s place for another three months and leave, when Elizabeth will not yet have given birth (Luke 1:56–57).

 

Let’s return to the women’s initial encounter. Next, Elizabeth describes to Mary what has happened, explaining that when she heard Mary’s greeting the ΒΡΕΦΟΣ in her womb leaped for joy (Luke 1:44). Mary then explodes into praise of God, uttering her beautiful canticle. And the rest is history.

 

So, ΒΡΕΦΟΣ has a wide range of meaning – possibly the best single equivalent in English would be “tiny child.” The word’s meaning ranges from baby still in the womb to infant, possibly even toddler. And, of course, it refers to newborn babies, such as our majestic Jesus, asleep in the manger.

 

But days, weeks and even months before Jesus was born, he was already a ΒΡΕΦΟΣ.

 

Friends, we should stop killing our children. Rather, let us cherish every ΒΡΕΦΟΣ. How can we do this? First, let us set Christ apart in our hearts, make him holy, as the Lord. Let’s commit to doing and saying what will be pleasing to him. Then, let’s support the local unwed mother, the local crisis pregnancy center. Let’s give of our time, let’s lend a hand. These are people who are making righteous choices and continually doing good. Let’s come alongside them in what they are already doing.

 

When distressed young mothers we know come to us who are with a tiny child, a ΒΡΕΦΟΣ, in their wombs and have a life-and-death decision standing before them, we should be gentle with them and also give them compassionate, clear advice that will help them for years and years down the road: “go for mothering” or “go for adoption.” Then we should come alongside them, after that, for support.

 

And amongst believers, we need to teach plainly what is in the Word and speak truth to one another. The church is the pillar of the truth, as we read in 1 Timothy 3:15. Let us never be afraid of consequences – personally inconveniences, such as societal rejection or even jail time – for speaking the simple truth amongst ourselves. Voluntarily “terminating a foetus” is murdering a human – and one’s own progeny at that. We must not call evil “good.”

 

And friends, when there are those who have committed murder or who have been complicit, let’s have compassion on them, when they come to us and we know that they are broken. Let’s not forget that Moses was a murdered, David was a murderer. We don’t know how far Paul went – but, he certainly was violently persecuting the body of Jesus, the Church. And God had mercy on all of them. So, let’s have mercy, too, and reach out, knowing that we ourselves have been saved from eternal fire and made righteous in Christ’s blood. So, let’s offer that redemption to everyone who has made a horrible decision.

 

I’ll leave you off with a song I’ve composed for the original Greek of Luke 1:41. It is called ΕΣΚΙΡΤΗΣΕΝ ΤΟ ΒΡΕΦΟΣ (pronounced “eskirtesen to brephos”), which means “the tiny child leaped.” Here is the text again:

 

Καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλισάβετ.

 

Fire – ΠΥΡ

Fire is perhaps one of the most powerful images – both in the natural world and in the Scriptures. Does fire represent God? Or does it point to the final judgement? Actually, it does both. The Koine Greek word for “fire,” ΠΥΡ, is a very versatile word.

(Note you can listen to this blog post as a podcast, here.)

 

It can refer to God himself. In the letter to the Hebrews, chapter 12, the author says that God is a consuming fire, ΠΥΡ. Such a statement is made already in Deuteronomy 4, with ΠΥΡ translating the Hebrew word esh, as happens so frequently in the Greek Old Testament. The old Greek translation of Isaiah 33 says something similar about God. And, indeed, appearing on Mt. Sinai to the people of Israel, God’s presence is like a consuming or burning fire (Exodus 24).

 

Or God may be distinct from fire, while his presence is within it. By night, God appeared in a pillar of fire, ΠΥΡ, leading the camp of Israelites, as we see in Exodus 13–14 and Numbers 9. Something similar occurs in Exodus 19, as God descends on Mt. Sinai, amidst fire.

 

And, earlier, the Angel of God appeared to Moses in a bush burning with fire at this same mountain, in Exodus 3.

 

Fire may reflect or pertain to some aspect of God the Father or his Beloved son. For example, Jesus’ eyes in the book of Revelation are like fire, ΠΥΡ. And when Jesus returns to earth, he will appear in fire, according to the word of the Lord through Paul, Silas and Timothy, in 2 Thessalonians 1.

 

Or, again, on the day of the Feast of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus’ followers as tongues of fire, ΠΥΡ (Acts 2). Indeed, John the Baptizer prophesied that Jesus would immerse people in the Spirit and in fire, as we see in Matthew 3. And in Revelation 4, John tells us that seven lamps of fire in God’s presence are his seven-fold Spirit.

 

God’s word is, itself, likened to fire. We see this in the old Greek translation of Jeremiah, chapters 20 and 23.

 

Or angels are like fire, ΠΥΡ, according to Psalm 104, cited in the opening chapter of the letter to the Hebrews.

 

Objects, too, that are put into motion or otherwise affected by God’s presence may also be accompanied by fire. In fact, the first occurrence ΠΥΡ in the Scriptures comes in a powerful encounter between God and Abram, in the land of Canaan, as God makes a covenant with this man. Divinely orchestrated lamp fire, ΠΥΡ, makes its way through the divided portions of the sacrificial animals, in Genesis 15.

 

I think you’re starting to get the point. There are many and varied, positive associations between fire and God, his Spirit, his word, his servants and his activity.

 

Of course, the entire sacrificial system is based on fire. Animals must not only be slaughtered, but also burned, in part or in a whole. The instances where fire for sacrifice is mentioned are numerous.

 

There is a proving of the faith of God’s people that is like, but greater than, the refining of gold by fire. We see this in chapter one of Simon Peter’s first letter. Related there is the fire of the metal refiner mentioned in Malachi 3, who purifies God’s people.

 

And love’s flashes are the flashes of the Lord’s fire, ΠΥΡ, according to Song of Songs 8.

 

Of course, there are many other places where fire is implied but the word ΠΥΡ does not occur (or, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the corresponding word esh). Here the positively portrayed topics would be many. Probably, the first thematically linked mention in the Scriptures would be the flaming sword, protecting Eden’s Garden from re-entry by Adam and Eve, after they have sinned, in Genesis 3. The sword is an agent of God.

 

Other notable instances would include, for example, Isaiah 6, where the prophet, undone at the sight of God in heaven, confesses his and his people’s sins. A coal is brought directly from the altar to his lips to purify them. But the word ΠΥΡ (or Hebrew esh) is not used. We will have to take leave of such thematic examples, though fascinating, because they will take us too far afield.

 

Focusing again on our word study, we can note many stories where fire appears. For example, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown into a fiery furnace, on account of their loyalty to the Lord. King Nebuchadnezzar, then sees four persons walking around in the fire, unscathed.

 

Peter denies Jesus while warming himself by a fire (Luke 22). Later, in the Galilee, Jesus restores him, again beside a fire — though another word is used here. Shipwrecked, Paul and others build a fire, in Acts 28. As Paul throws in a bundle of wood, he is bit by a poisonous snake. However, it has no ill effect on him. We could add more stories here.

 

God also offers promises of protection in his Word to those who are loyal to him. In Isaiah 43 God promises the people of Israel that if they will pass through waters and through fire, they’ll be neither overwhelmed nor burned.

 

Fire can also represent great evil. In Isaiah 9, God says that wickedness burns like a fire. James 3 tells us that the human tongue is a fire. And fire can be used for great evil. Notoriously, there were those in ancient times burned their children by fire, ΠΥΡ, in worship of false gods. We see this, for example, in 2 Kings 23.

 

Let’s talk now about fire, originating directly from God, that he uses for his purposes. First, we can note that God uses miraculous fire on altars to demonstrate his stamp of approval. Here are a few examples. In Leviticus 9, fire from God’s presence wondrously comes and burns up the offering on the altar, the day that the priests, Aaron and his sons, begin ministering in the Tabernacle, offering sacrifices on behalf of their sins and the sins of the people. Likewise, the first day that the newly built temple in Jerusalem is used for worship, fire falling from heaven consumes the sacrificial animals on the altar, in 2 Chronicles 7.

 

Earlier, at that same site, David had built an altar on the threshing floor of a Jebusite, during an hour of great difficulty in Israel. God showed his approval, by consuming the sacrifices there with heavenly fire. This is in 1 Chronicles 21. In 1 Kings 18, Elijah calls out to God to answer from heaven with fire and it falls upon the altar he has built, consuming the sacrifice, the wood and the altar itself – even the dust and the trench of water surrounding the altar.

 

There is also a revealing fire. In Corinthians 3, Paul informs his readers the great Day will reveal the true value of the work of every follower of Christ. Some will have much to show for their efforts, because their hearts were filled with faith in God and their deeds done for his glory. Others, though, will be saved, but only as though through fire.  (And many of us will be somewhere in between!)

 

There is also a fire of punishment. People don’t like to talk about this one. But it is important not to ignore. Towards the end of the ten plagues, God sends the worst hailstorm against Egypt that it has ever known, we read in Exodus 9. It must have been horrible, as even fire was mixed in it. Still, God showed mercy, by announcing what he was doing a day in advance and allowing Pharaoh and all Egyptians to bring in people and livestock, should they have faith to believe that the disaster would happen.

 

Later in Moses’s day, God-sent fire affects even the Israelites. Fire from God consumes two wicked priests, we read in Leviticus 10. Later, two hundred and fifty rebellious Israelite leaders are consumed by fire, through divine intervention, in Numbers 16. Despite the many wonders God performed for Israel and their deliverance from Egypt, that generation complained greatly against God. God’s patience was worn thin. At a location called Taberah, fire from God burned against some of them, as we hear in Numbers 11. 

 

In Elijah’s day, fire from heaven consumes the soldiers sent to capture him, in 2 Kings 1. James and John, sons of Thunder, want to do something similar to a Samaritan village, we read in Luke 9. But Jesus stays their hands. Now is a time for mercy. More examples could be added.

 

The main instance of fire from heaven as punishment is, of course, the fire that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah and two other cities. The story comes to us from Genesis 19. Every person living in these four cities are destroyed by fire and sulphur falling from heaven — all, that is, except four people. And one of these people nevertheless dies during the escape, on account of disobedience. The devastation was so great that the entire region became uninhabitable thereafter.

 

If these wicked cities were completely wiped out, why do we even need the story about them in the Bible? Why shouldn’t knowledge of them be erased from history, too? Paul writes this in Romans 15:4 (I’m citing from the NRSV): “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.”

 

We are meant to be instructed and encouraged by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah’s downfall. Let’s thank God, then, that the story is in the Bible.

 

Lastly, let’s talk about the final judgment, a lasting punishment which will be by fire. Isaiah 66 tells us that a fire that will never be quenched will consume the corpses of those who have rebelled against God.

 

John the Baptizer prophesies that Jesus will, in time, separate wheat from chaff, in Matthew 3. The chaff, people rebellious against God, Jesus will burn with an unquenchable fire.

 

Jesus himself repeatedly warns about the fire of Gehenna, the place of final judgement. Trees that do not produce good fruit will be burned in the fire, ΠΥΡ (Matthew 7:19). Weeds will be separated from wheat. The wheat, those following the Devil’s ways, will be burned up by fire (Matthew 13:40, 42). Good fish will be separated from bad fish. The bad fish will be burned in fire (Matthew 13:50).

 

Those who did not serve Jesus by taking care of the hungry, the thirsty, the strangers, the naked, the sick, the prisoners will “go away into eternal punishment” (Matt 25:46). They will be thrown “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:41).

 

Those addicted to perverted or covetous or otherwise inappropriate use of their eyes, if unrepentant, will go away to the Gehenna of fire (Matt 18:9). Other sins, involving the extreme misuse of mouth, through speech, or of hands and feet will incur this punishment by fire (Matt 5:22; 18:8-9).

 

Even those attached to Jesus, if fruitless, can be removed. They will be burned, Jesus says (John 15:6). Jesus says these things in order to motivate everyone, including his followers, to stay close to him, whatever the cost. In Him alone is life. And it is a good life!

But this idea of eternal judgement by fire is not unique to John the Baptizer and Jesus, the Messiah. Paul speaks of God’s coming wrath and the everlasting destruction for those who do not know God, as Jesus is revealed in fire (2 Thessalonians 1). (More commonly, Paul speaks of the coming wrath, without reference to fire.) The author of the letter to the Hebrews prophesies a fury of fire that will consume God’s adversaries (Hebrews 10). Similarly, James says that the precious metals of rich oppressors will, in rusted form, eat their flesh like fire at the judgement (James 5).

 

The book of the Revelation of Jesus the Messiah, of course, gives a fuller picture of the final judgement. A “lake” of not water, but fire, ΠΥΡ, will be the final resting place of Satan and his angels and all the wicked, who have not accepted the free redemption from the lamb who was slain (Revelation 19; 20; 21).

 

At the end of the last blog post, we looked at what Simon Peter says about the flood and the final fire of judgement. Again, here is 2 Peter 3:5–7, in the NRSV:

“5 …by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, 6 through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.”

The speech of God is, itself, presently preserving the heavens and earth – preserving them for ΠΥΡ. For people with no regard for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the day of judgment will mean just one thing: fire.

 

For those who know and love this God, there will be joy and eternal life, in the Messiah – with the greatest intimacy that humans have ever known or longed for. All of those desires will meet their great fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah, for those who know Him and are called by his name.

 

Simon goes on to repeat this idea of judgement by fire two more times, the word we are studying does not appear there, though (2 Peter 3:10, 12; KJV). All of the elements of the earth will be melted with fervent heat. There will, then, be a reboot of the grandest scale, as the heavens and the earth are renewed.

 

So, Simon urges those who call Jesus “Lord” to live godly lives. And he calls us to consider the Lord’s slowness to bring this judgement a clear and resilient patience, demonstrating a marvelous mercy.

 

Judah (also called Jude), a brother of Jesus, also speaks about the fiery judgement at this world’s end. Judah says this (Jude 7):

“Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and [went away after strange flesh], serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

The citation is from the NRSV, with one change – I have translated one phrase more literally, as “went away after strange flesh.” Friends, the message from Judah is that those dwelling in Sodom and Gomorrah engaged in sexual immorality, including, especially same-sex sexuality. You need to know that. (Homosexuality is what Judah’s peculiar phrasing refers to. I have written about this in blog post from March 2023. I’m also writing a book, where this text from Jude will be discussed in one of the chapters. The book is called Jesus and Sodom: Same-sex Sexuality through the Messiah’s Merciful Eyes.)

 

Judah draws on the precedent of Sodom and Gomorrah, which suffered complete destruction by fire, as a warning. They serve as an example, he says, of what a punishment of eternal fire may be like. And he encourages his readers to save some people, by snatching them out of the fire, if they are able to (Jude 23). We do this, metaphorically, by kindly yet clearly telling people the truth about where the two paths lead – the path of life (Jesus is the way, he is life) and the path of death (living godless lives, without Jesus, without his ways).

 

The idea is Sodom’s demise being a precedent or foreshadowing of the final fiery punishment is not new. Isaiah, speaking of a day when the “heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll” (Isaiah 34:4; JPS), prophesies about “the Lord’s day of retribution” (34:8). Isaiah describes the Lord judging the nations. The glorious land of the proud is reduced to rubble, the soil is turned into sulphur, with burning pitch. The picture recalls the paradigm of Sodom and Gomorrah’s demise. (Neither the Hebrew word esh, nor the Greek word ΠΥΡ is used in this context.)

 

Jesus, the Lord, says something similar. In Luke 17:29–30, we read (and this time I’ll cite the King James Version):

“29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.”

 

The original Greek text reads like this – I’m drawing on the Tyndale House Greek New Testament version:  

29 ᾗ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ ἐξῆλθεν Λὼτ ἀπὸ Σοδόμων, ἔβρεξεν πῦρ καὶ θεῖον ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἀπώλεσεν πάντας· 30 κατὰ ταῦτα ἔσται ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀποκαλύπτεται.

 

Jesus likens the suddenness and totality of the destruction by fire, ΠΥΡ, and brimstone, ΘΕΙΟΝ, to the ferocious day when the Son of man will be revealed in his glory. So, Jesus encourages his hearers to repent from sin, turn to God and receive the free gift of God’s mercy, through the good news of forgiveness of sins, through his agency.

 

Please note, this same connection of fire, ΠΥΡ, and brimstone, ΘΕΙΟΝ, is found in the last book of the Bible. Through the Lord Jesus, God discloses to John the revelator that the final punishment for the godless is burning in the lake of fire and brimstone (Revelation 19:20; 20:10; 21:8).

 

Friends, let’s please bear in mind that same-sex sexuality was a notable sin among Sodom and Gomorrah’s vices. This should offer a strong warning, out of love, to those who would raise the LGBTQ flag – or who would bow, morally, to the weight of its force.

 

I will leave off with a song, a dirge, commemorating the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. May it serve as a precious warning to us, causing us to appreciate this present age of mercy, a time of God’s great patience. The Lord’s flame of love – from where the flashes of human love come – is still graciously, passionately calling us. His fiery love for us calls us all to turn from dead paths and to attach ourselves to his Messiah to find limitless forgiveness, restoration, life, hope of eternal life – and intimacy beyond our dreams with the One who truly loves us.

 

The lyrics are taken directly from Genesis 19:24. (I am using the Rahlfs and Hanhart edition of the Septuagint.)

 

First, I’ll give you the English text (this is the NRSV):

“Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven…”

 

Here is the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew. You can listen to it as a song.

καὶ κύριος ἔβρεξεν ἐπὶ Σοδομα καὶ Γομορρα θεῖον καὶ πῦρ παρὰ κυρίου ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

Rain – ΥΕΤΟΣ

Did you know that sometimes too much of a good thing can kill? When creation is out of order, humans suffer. But what puts creation in disorder? In the last blog post, we looked at a Greek word describing a new, painful manifestation in the physical world that occurred on account of Adam’s sin. Today we will look at what happens when human society gets out of order, when what is meant for blessing becomes a source of destruction.

 

The Koine Greek word ΥΕΤΟΣ (pronounced uetos – and the first vowel is /u/, as we find in the French “u” or German “ü”) – this word means “rain.” It can refer to light rain or torrential downpours.

 

ΥΕΤΟΣ first appears in the Scriptures in Genesis 7, where God predicts the torrential rain that will bring about the flood. Genesis 7:4 reads (and I’m citing the Jewish Publication Society version):

 

“For in seven days’ time I will make it rain upon the earth, forty days and forty nights, and I will blot out from the earth all existence that I created.”

 

The ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew text says the following:

 

ἔτι γὰρ ἡμερῶν ἑπτὰ ἐγὼ ἐπάγω ὑετὸν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας καὶ τεσσαράκοντα νύκτας καὶ ἐξαλείψω πᾶσαν τὴν ἐξανάστασιν, ἣν ἐποίησα, ἀπὸ προσώπου τῆς γῆς.

 

(This is from the Rahlfs and Hanhart edition of the Septuagint.)

 

It’s always important, I believe, to note when the first time a word or concept appears in the Bible. Here, the Greek word ΥΕΤΟΣ is translating the Hebrew word geshem, which also appears first here in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Greek word appears a number of times in the story about Noah. ΥΕΤΟΣ will not appear again until the ten plagues, in Exodus. (And the Hebrew word geshem will not occur again until the book of Leviticus.) ΥΕΤΟΣ, rain, therefore, is closely associated with the flood.

 

What does this tell us? A lot. Here’s how. First, we should note that rain is very often a blessing from God – provided it comes at the right time and in the right amount. This principle is stated explicitly in Leviticus 26 and in Deuteronomy, chapters 11 and 28. (In the last two instances, ΥΕΤΟΣ translates another Hebrew word, matar.) God promises that, if his people will abide by his commandments, they will receive the rains in their appropriate season, so that the earth will be fruitful. The people of God will, therefore, receive an abundance of blessing, in the form of material provisions – food to eat, fodder for animals and other produce to bring humans joy.

 

When the temple in Jerusalem is dedicate, King Solomon calls upon God to hear the people’s prayers for rain in the future, in the event that there is a drought. Solomon recognizes that the drought might occur on account of the people’s sin. In both versions of the event (1 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 6), our word ΥΕΤΟΣ is employed.

 

The same idea appears in the New Testament. In a public speech in Lystra, talking to non-Jews, Paul speaks of ΥΕΤΟΣ as a blessing from heaven, for fruitful seasons, to provide food and make hearts joyful (Acts 14).

All of these places in the Scriptures point us to the first mention of the concept of rainwater, namely Genesis 2. There a different word is used – both in Greek (ΒΡΕΧΕΙΝ, pronounced brechein) and in Hebrew (himtir). In that case, the word used is a verb, meaning “to rain.” But the word is not based on the same root as the noun ΥΕΤΟΣ (or, in Hebrew, the word geshem), meaning “rain,” which we are concerned with in this study.

 

The point is this: when the concept of rain first appears, the book of Genesis describes it as a means by which God will water the earth, causing vegetation to be produced. So, in essence, God would want rain to be a blessing.

 

Indeed, God likens his own Word to rain, which will invariably water the earth. This profound idea appears in Isaiah 55. What God says will always accomplish what he desires – one way or another.

 

Now, we know that withholding rain can be a punishment. We saw this already in Solomon’s prayer. It is clear, too, in Moses’s words in Deuteronomy 11. If there is no obedience, there may be no ΥΕΤΟΣ.

 

History gives us a clear, practical example of this consequence. Ahab was one of the most wicked early kings in the Northern Kingdom – that is the Kingdom of Israel, which broke away from the Southern Kingdom or the Kingdom of Judah, after Solomon died. Ahab introduced pagan worship into the people of God to a previously unknown extent. Times were dire. As a result, God predicted a drought, through the mouth of Elijah, the prophet. In 1 Kings 17–18, we read about the absence of ΥΕΤΟΣ for years and, then, at the prophet’s prayer, the restoration of it.

 

In a similar vein, the prophet Isaiah speaks of the Kingdom of Judah, likening it to a vineyard. Because the vineyard has produced no good fruit, God will withhold ΥΕΤΟΣ from it.

 

But, what about too much rain? A torrent of ΥΕΤΟΣ appears in Exodus 9 – along with hailstones and fire, falling from heaven, and also thunder. This is one of the great plagues that God brings against the Egyptians – a civilization that despised God’s people, murdered their infants and had enslaved them.

 

Rain at the wrong time could spell a disaster for God’s people, too. Noting that the people were rebelling against God, the prophet Samuel prayed for rain and thunder during harvest time. Every farmer knows that rain at harvest spells disaster. You cannot get the harvest off the fields. And God answered Samuel’s prayer. Here, ΥΕΤΟΣ was a stern rebuke from the Lord.


And this sort of phenomenon is precisely what happened in Noah’s time – only to the nth degree. The word ΥΕΤΟΣ, then, is foundationally associated with the flood, where creation gets out of order, on account of human activity that has become lawless, deviating from God’s good order and design. An overabundance of what should be a blessing – ΥΕΤΟΣ – overwhelms the world and submerges it. Then, a cosmic reboot takes place. Noah and his family begin again.

When we as humans get out of order, the created world follows suit. Human sin produces the ill effects of disordered processes in creation – floods, droughts and other natural disasters. All of these have continued since the fall. The earth is affected by the cumulative weight of the sins of the generations before us on the earth – and our generation has added our own set of sins to the mix. And these have not been miniscule. We should never blame God, when natural disasters strike, as if God has done something wrong. It is human rebellion, human insubordination to God’s good ways that have put – and continue to put – creation into disorder, bringing about such disasters. So, it should not surprise us, when floods, forest fires, famines and the like take place.

 

What should surprise us is when everything is working as it should be. This is a clear sign of God’s mercy. We should not take this for granted. Jesus says the following about rain (though, here the word ΥΕΤΟΣ does not appear – so, I am deviating a bit from the word study). I’m citing from Matthew 5:44–45 in the New Revised Standard Version:

 

44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.

 

When God’s rain falls on the earth in good amounts and at the right time, this is a sign of his incomparable mercy. As a whole, as humanity, we don’t deserve it.

 

So, as Christians, the next time we experience weather as it should be – whether sunny at the right time or rainy at the appropriate season – let’s give thanks to our gracious Dad and God, whose persistent and passionate desire is to bring blessing to all Noah’s children.

 

Let’s remember the rainbow (ΤΟΞΟΝ), too – the sign of God’s mercy, signalling that he will never again destroy the whole world with a flood. And let’s call the thorn plants (ΑΚΑΝΘΑΙ) to mind, too, remembering how Jesus wore this physical representation of the curse on his beautiful head, all to show God’s mercy to us.

 

Finally, I’ll leave you with one further thought regarding the rain-based flood. Jesus’ disciple Simon Peter says this about the flood (2 Peter 3:5–7, again in the NRSV):

 

5 …by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, 6 through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.

 

(I’ve deviated again from the word study, here, since ΥΕΤΟΣ does not appear.) Peter describes how, long ago, the world was once decimated with water. In the future, though, he assures us, a final destruction by fire will occur for those who stubbornly have resisted God’s bountiful offer of mercy. So, in the next post, then, we will talk about “fire” (ΠΥΡ – pronounced pur, again with the “u” as the French “u” or German “ü.”)

 

As in the previous posts, I’ll leave off here with a song I’ve written for the occasion. It comes from the text of the Old Greek version of Genesis 7:4. The song is called ἐπάγω ὑετὸν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (epago ueton epi ten gen). In the title you can hear our word ΥΕΤΟΣ in the object form,  YETON. Enjoy!

Thorn Plant – ΑΚΑΝΘΑ

A topic too painful to ignore – and a mercy too vast to comprehend – this is what we will talk about today. In the last blog post (or podcast), we looked at a Greek word relating to the time of the flood. Today we will go back even further, chronologically.

 

The Koine Greek word ΑΚΑΝΘΑ (pronounced akantha) has a broad range and can mean “thorn plant” or “thistle” or “brier.” In the plural, ΑΚΑΝΘΑI (akanthai), the word might sometimes be most easily translated into English as “thorns.” This word has a very special place in the Bible.

 

Did you know that there was a time on earth when no thorns existed? The word ΑΚΑΝΘΑ first appears in the Bible – that is, in the Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures – in the tragic words that God speaks over the earth, as a curse. The curse comes in Gen 3, on account of Adam’s sin. An original bliss and perfection had been destroyed. God says in Genesis 3:18–19 (and the translation is from the New American Standard Bible):

 

18 Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; Yet you shall eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You shall eat bread, Until you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”

 

The Old Greek translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:18–19 says this:

 

18 ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους ἀνατελεῖ σοι, καὶ φάγῃ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ. 19 ἐν ἱδρῶτι τοῦ προσώπου σου φάγῃ τὸν ἄρτον σου ἕως τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι σε εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἐξ ἧς ἐλήμφθης· ὅτι γῆ εἶ καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ.

 

(I am using the Rahlfs and Hanhart edition of the Septuagint.)

 

These are the first negative words God speaks in the Bible, as the rupture between humanity and God is brought to light.

 

So thorny plants – or ΑΚΑΝΘΑI – are unequivocally linked to humanity’s downfall, the frustration of creation, and the requirement of Adam and his descendants to work the earth. They will have to toil now, contending with the thorns and thistles that the earth will now produce, in order to make the earth fruitful. They will work by the sweat of their faces.

 

The Greek word translates here the Hebrew term kotz (קוץ). But it can also come as a translation for other Hebrew words. (One example of it translating another Hebrew word is the phrase about a lily among thorns in Song of Solomon 2:2.)

 

The word ΑΚΑΝΘΑ appears in the New Testament, too. In Jesus’ parable of the sower and the seed, for example, one of the four soils receives the seed, sprouts a plant, which is then choked out by thorny plants (ΑΚΑΝΘΑI). Jesus explains that these thorn-bearing weeds are the worries of this age and the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires and pleasures of life. Jesus likens these forces, which wage against our spirits, to the effects of the curse of the earth.

 

More important, of course, is the appearance of thorny plants during the hour of Jesus’ suffering. Typically, in competitions of sports and the like, a winner would receive a leafy wreath worn on one’s head. Like a crown, placed on the head of a king or queen, a wreath was a means of honouring someone. The beautiful growth of God’s creation was specially fashioned and purposefully employed to adorn the most notable part of a person’s body, as a mark of beauty and distinction. The use of a thorn plant for a headdress, of course, is a horrible mockery of this convention.

 

In contrast to the conventional demonstration of honor, Jesus received a wicked display of dishonor, as soldiers twisted a bunch of thorns on a plant branch into a wreath.

 

They placed the wreath of thorns on his head, kneeling before him, mockingly, hailing him as king of the Jews. The rod that they had placed in his hand as a mock king’s scepter – this they also then took and used to beat his thorn-crowned head with. Matthew 27:29–30 says (I’m citing the New International Version):

 

29 and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. 30 They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again.

 

The Greek text says this (I’m drawing on the Tyndale House Greek New Testament):

 

29 καὶ πλέξαντες στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν ἐπέθηκαν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ κάλαμον ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ, καὶ γονυπετήσαντες ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ ἐνέπαιξαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες· χαῖρε βασιλεῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 30 καὶ ἐμπτύσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν ἔλαβον τὸν κάλαμον καὶ ἔτυπτον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ.

 

After this, everything went immeasurably downhill. The parallels with the original state of humanity, at peace with God, are breath-taking. There was once a tree in a garden, given to produce life, where the first man and woman, naked and unashamed, enjoyed both unbroken fellowship with one another and continual friendship with God. Now, another man, stripped of his clothing, was nailed to a dead tree, used for the purpose of murder, with thorns on his brow, abusively shamed by people around him, crying out to his God and Father over the agony of their ruptured relationship, with a sense of being forsaken by God.

 

The very thorns which are a noteworthy element of God’s original curse on the earth, because of Adam’s disobedience, were placed on the head of God’s beloved Son, sent to earth to save all who would believe in him. He was sent to rescue all of us who would turn from our sins to believe in and receive God’s loving mercy. Jesus could easily have resisted the evil people who treated him in this abusive way. But he didn’t. God’s overture of mercy and forgiveness was extended, through Jesus, even to the soldiers that lampooned him, placing the thorny headdress on him.

 

Let us never forget that there was once a time when there were no thorns on this planet. Let us not forget, not least of all because, for those of us who call Jesus our Lord, we remember that Jesus’ own head bore the punishment of human sin. Because of his enduring this suffering, out of love, he made a way so that in the future there will be a new heaven and a new earth, where pain, suffering and aberrations in creation – such as thorns of all kinds – will never be present. (Trees, however, will abide with us forever, the Scriptures inform us.)

 

Here is a song I’ve written for the text of the Old Greek version of Genesis 3:18–19. It begins with the word ΑΚΑΝΘΑΣ, which is the object form of ΑΚΑΝΘΑI, that is the plural of ΑΚΑΝΘA.

(For those who are interested, you can listen to the content of this post as a podcast.)

The Rainbow – ΤΟ ΤΟΞΟΝ

The rainbow is a beautiful thing. Let’s talk about an ancient Greek word for “rainbow,” namely ΤΟΞΟΝ (pronounced: toxon). (This is intended to be the first blog post in a series that will, I hope, appear throughout this June.)

 

The word ΤΟΞΟΝ first appears in Scripture in the book of Genesis. The ancient translation of the books of Moses from Hebrew into Koine Greek existed already in the time of Jesus. It was known and used by Jews throughout the Roman world and beyond.

 

In the place in Genesis where TOΞΟΝ makes its debut, the world’s inhabitants have become increasingly unrighteous. God was very merciful and showed patience. But the level of moral pollution got to such a state that God’s great forbearance was brought to the breaking point. God wiped out all earth’s inhabitants by flood waters — all, except one family.

 

God preserved a family of eight people – Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives. This larger family consisted of four smaller ones: A father and mother and the families started by each of their three children. When the flood waters receded, God made a covenant with the four families. He promised he would never destroy the earth’s population again through a watery demise.

 

To confirm the covenant, this gracious promise, God gave a sign. It was the rainbow. Here is the relevant text from Genesis (9:12–17). I’m citing the New Revised Standard Version –

 

12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.” (NRSV)

 

The Old Greek translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 9:13 says this:

τὸ τόξον μου τίθημι ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ, καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῖον διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς.

 

Again, the NRSV has here: I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

 

So, ΤΟΞΟΝ is an important word. It refers to the sign of the first covenant that God ever made with humans. It commemorates God’s mercy. It also reminds us of God’s faithfulness to those who are righteous in their generation. For Noah was found to be righteous in his generation (Genesis 6:9; 7:1).

 

And Noah is the father of us all, genetically!

 

The word ΤΟΞΟΝ has a wide range. It can also mean “archer’s bow.” It is found elsewhere in the Old Testament with this meaning. For example, a little later in Genesis, Isaac tells Esau to take quiver and “bow” (Greek TOΞΟΝ translating, again, Hebrew keshet), so that he can catch some game for Isaac to eat.

 

Further, the rainbow is connected to God’s own presence. There is another Koine Greek word used for “rainbow” in the New Testament: ΙΡΙΣ (transliterated into the Latin alphabet with i-r-i-s [iris] and pronounced: ee-rees). (This word has the meaning of “rainbow” or “luminous arc or circle,” but not of “archer’s bow.”)

 

The rainbow demonstrates the manifold and variegated brilliance of God. John, the revelator, sees a rainbow surrounding God’s throne. Speaking of God the Father, Revelation 4:3 says:

 

The one who sat there shone like jasper and ruby. Around the throne was a rainbow shining like an emerald.

 

The original Greek says (in the THGNT version):

 

καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ὅμοιος ὁράσει λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι καὶ σαρδίῳ καὶ ἶρις κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγδίνῳ.

 

Here, surrounding God, is where the rainbow (ΙΡΙΣ) has its natural setting and, indeed, its origin.

So, the rainbow that we see in the sky from earth is a dim light, in comparison to the original.

 

 

Some following my thoughts here may be skeptical. Was there really a Noah? And surely there couldn’t have been a global flood, could there? Aren’t the first 11 chapters of Genesis just myth, anyway? Well, we have it on good authority that Noah was a real, historical person. Luke the doctor, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, Peter, and none other than Jesus himself accepted Noah as a real person of history. And there was a flood – both Peter and Jesus confirm this.

 

Let’s review what we know: the rainbow is a sign that should remind us of God's mercy, his covenant with all of humanity on account of those few who trusted in him and of the beauty and majesty surrounding His own throne. 

 

BUT when the rainbow gets employed to represent unrighteousness, what are we to say? And when this usage is done by Noah’s children, what good can come of it? And when those who do this deny, all the while, that there was a flood, what will be the outcome? And if, in all of this, the misappropriated sign is connected with the chief vice of pride, surely we have a losing combination. It can only be an insult against God’s kindness, which the ΙΡΙΣ, the ΤΟΞΟΝ, has been designed to display.

 

Let us pray for mercy for all who have lost their way.

 

Now, here is a song that I wrote specifically for this blog post (and the related pod cast). It is called TOΞΟΝ and the text is taken directly from Genesis 9:13 in ancient Greek. Enjoy!

Jesus, son of David, son of Adam

It’s that time of year again, when we remember the birth of Jesus, the Messiah. This was the long-expected deliverer, born of a woman, born at just the right time. For some it is ludicrous to think that Jesus was born from a virgin. But this is a truth that has been handed down to us, who believe, from the earliest of times, and maintained throughout the centuries. And it is reasonable. After all, if one believes that the immortal, invisible God has created all visible things out of what was not visible, then it is surely no stretch to believe that this same God could fertilize an ovum in a woman’s womb. But how about Jesus’ most ancient father and mother – Adam and Eve? How important are they to the story of Christmas?

 

 
 

Photo Credit: Sweet Media (Jim Padgett), Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0


Many of us will read Luke 2 with joy this season, if we have not done so already. The telltale features of the Messiah’s arrival are memorable and remarkable ­– the uncomely place of birth, clandestine praise of angels, recognition by lowly shepherds, animal feeding trough as a sign, and ominous specter of Roman imperial power. All of these features, I imagine, we will believe. But what about Luke 3?

 


The text of the genealogy is straightforward enough (Luke 3:23–38):

23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, rthe son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (ESV)

 

Luke, the physician, makes no distinction between individuals mentioned early on in the genealogy and those later. For him, this is a very straightforward record of biological descendants. In this sentence, each man is connected to the one following him simply by the article in the genitive case (Greek: tou – τοῦ). In such genealogical lists, one might expect telescoping, that is to say, some generations may be skipped. However, it would not be expected that someone listed as a father (or ancestor) of another was not, in fact, his progenitor. Rather, if in such an ancestral list one man was in fact not the descendent of another (nor adopted), then his inclusion would constitute a lie.

 

The exception to the rule in Luke’s genealogy is, naturally, Joseph, Jesus’ adoptive father. Luke makes this point explicit. He says that Jesus was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph. But, in fact, through Mary, Jesus was the (grand)son of Eli (or Heli –  Ἥλι in Greek). Presumably Mary was Eli’s daughter.

 

What does this all mean? Luke believed that Jesus was descended from Adam. Does that make you feel uncomfortable? Then, perhaps you should reconsider what you take to be your source of truth. You accept Luke’s account in chapter 2 regarding Jesus’ birth, don’t you? Why not accept his account also of Jesus’ hereditary ancestry?

 

Let me put it this way: no ancient reader would have read Luke’s genealogy and imagined that somehow Luke was presenting Adam as a mythical figure. Luke is claiming that he was real – every bit as real as you and I. 


And Luke wasn’t alone. Jesus thought the same thing. How do we know this? While experiencing intense rejection and abuse, Jesus at one point, exasperated, stated (Luke 11:49–51):


49 “Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ 50 so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation” (NRSV).

 

Jesus mentions Abel, slaughtered near the dawn of creation, and Zechariah, murdered during the reign of Joash, king of Judah, in the same breath. For Jesus, both of these prophets’ blood will be required of his own generation. In fact, Jesus describes all of the righteous prophets who suffered an untimely death at the hands of oppressors with one description. They, as a group, have experienced the same fate. Jesus speaks of “the blood of all the prophets.” Abel is one of them. He took his place at the helm. Moreover, Jesus says explicitly that the prophets have been persecuted “since the foundation of the world” (Greek: apo kataboles kosmou – ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου). Abel, of course, is the man who fits with that beginning point.

 


But there is more. Jesus is himself drawing on a concept that appears in the Scriptures (the Tanach or Old Testament). In the final section of 1 and 2 Chronicles, after the persistent moral degradation of the kingdom of Judah has been chronicled, the Scriptures read (2 Chronicles 36:15–16):   


15 “The LORD, the God of their ancestors, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place; 16 but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD against his people became so great that there was no remedy” (NRSV).

 

It is recalled how God’s people consistently rejected his messengers, in particular his prophets. God sent many prophets, but the people would not heed their words. Next the Babylonians come and raze to the ground the palaces in Jerusalem, the city walls and the temple of God, killing many and taking others into exile.

 


This concluding, summary statement in 2 Chronicles 36 echoes what was said earlier, when Zechariah was murdered in the temple itself. Jehoiada, a good priest, had raised king Joash from childhood. (And Jehoiada’s wife, Jehosheba, had saved Joash’s life, as a child, from the boy’s crazed grandmother, Athaliah). But when Jehoiada died, Joash did great evil (2 Chronicles 24:17–22):   


17 “But after the death of Jehoiada, the officers of Judah came, bowing low to the king; and the king listened to them. 18 They forsook the House of the LORD God of their fathers to serve the sacred posts and idols; and there was wrath upon Judah and Jerusalem because of this guilt of theirs. 19 The LORD sent prophets among them to bring them back to Him; they admonished them but they would not pay heed. 20 Then the spirit of God enveloped Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest; he stood above the people and said to them, “Thus God said: Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD when you cannot succeed? Since you have forsaken the LORD, He has forsaken you.” 21 They conspired against him and pelted him with stones in the court of the House of the LORD, by order of the king. 22 King Joash disregarded the loyalty that his father Jehoiada had shown to him, and killed his son. As he [Zechariah] was dying, he said, “May the LORD see and requite it.” (NRSV)

 

As in chapter 36, so too here, in chapter 24, the emphasis falls on the prophets. God sent the prophets, but their words were not heeded. Zechariah is the key case in point. His death is the pinnacle of the betrayal of Judah’s leaders against God’s messengers. Here’s how.

 


Joash killed the son of the very man who raised him, as though his own child, helping him gain his crown. Joash actually grew up in the temple, hidden away for years from Athaliah. And Joash had Zechariah killed in the temple precincts themselves – a location where not even someone defiled by human blood is allowed to enter! The wickedness has a further level of betrayal in it that disturbs greatly. In a way, Joash killed someone akin to his own brother. For Joash grew up with Zechariah, Jehoiada’s son. And he killed him at the same location where he had grown up with him – the House of God. (And, since the temple was the closest thing to the Garden of Eden, Joash’s aggression was a variation on a theme – a second Cain who killed Abel in the Garden.)

 


Joash’s betrayal of Zechariah is comparable to Cain’s turning on Abel. And as Abel and Zechariah were killed by their brothers, Jesus knew this would happen to him, too. He came as our “brother,” taking on human flesh, knowing that we, his “brothers,” would have him murdered. But he came anyways, out of pure love for us. And this ineffable love wins over even some of the most impenetrable hearts.

 


Jesus draws on this biblical precedent in 1 and 2 Chronicles in his own words against his generation. In 2 Chronicles, the weight of the blood of many prophets falls on the generation of Zedekiah, when the Babylonians conquer and raze Jerusalem to the ground. But in this case we are only speaking of the blood of the prophets sent to the kingdom of Judah, from the days of king Rehoboam (Solomon’s son) until king Zedekiah. In Jesus’ case, he speaks of the blood of all the prophets, since the foundation of the world: from Abel until the blood of Zechariah, killed in the temple courts. Had other prophets been killed since Zechariah? Of course. In fact, John the Baptist has already been beheaded by this point in the Gospel of Luke, where Jesus makes the pronouncement against his generation. But Jesus is making a point by stopping at Zechariah. He is calling on biblical precedent. The same dangerous rejection of God’s prophets that brought about the Babylonian exile is bringing about an even greater disaster for the children of Israel, in Jesus’ generation. And it is here that Jesus cites the blood of Abel, in a concrete manner.

 

In short, Jesus believed that Abel existed. If Abel existed, so too did Adam. And this is exactly what Jesus intimates, when asked about divorce (Matthew 19.4–5):


4 “He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”’?” (NRSV)


Jesus does not mention Adam and Eve by name. But he cites from Genesis 1 and 2, respectively, with full confidence in the written, scriptural text. Jesus believed that Adam and Eve were real, the original couple. Abel was their son, killed by Cain. Basically, Jesus believed the Bible. Shouldn’t we, too?!  


This post was modified slightly on Fri, Jan 5, and Sat, Jan 6, 2024, to make a correction and small addition.


From Weak to Walking in Righteousness: A Personal Journey

I have been wicked. I don’t even know where to start. But I know one thing – you will be amazed at God’s mercy and grace in my life. As an academic, a biblical scholar, I veered from the true path. And it took me some time to get back to walking in righteousness. Let me tell you a snippet of the longer story.


When I went to Israel in 2005 for a semester, I was registered for Jerusalem University College. God had called me to go. (Even as early as 16 years old it was laid on my heart to do this.) But as I arrived in Jerusalem that January, I opted out of the program and went to the Hebrew University, for various reasons that I won’t get into here. I should have obeyed the Lord.


But he had mercy. Then I failed to get into Cambridge to do my PhD, for the second year in a row, though the Lord had clearly guided me to apply there, through a kind and godly scholar at Tyndale House. In retrospect, I can see that there were significant areas of my personal life that were out of order. I had idolized a relationship. I had disobeyed things God had said to me directly. So it makes sense that God’s plan was not able to unfold as it ought to have.


But he offers more grace. I began doing my PhD at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. But over the years, various forms of idolatry had lodged in my heart, creating an uneasiness and perfectionist drive. It could be very difficult working with me.


Working very long hours, without breaks, I also ruined my health. For one year, I had carpal tunnel and tendinitis in both hands. Then, following that, I had a year with extreme tailbone problems. Finally, in a third year, I had great difficulties in my neck, and I could not lean my head downwards. Always working. But, in a way, never really progressing.


I spent about three years where, during communion, I was unwilling to self examine. I was not allowing God to really convict and transform me. I was stuck. And when you are stuck in your spiritual walk, you are actually going backwards.


Not surprisingly, my view of the Bible began to change drastically. It wasn’t the faith I had started out with in my childhood. But it was new, exciting. And the novel approach to the Bible promised to offer me new insights, which others could not obtain. As scholars, I and others like me saw the Bible as noble, containing God’s words for humanity, but, ultimately, full of many errors. We were judging the Bible, not letting it judge us – our thought, speech and behaviour.

But it gets worse. When I switched PhD topics, I connected with a new, additional advisor. Loren Stuckenbruck, professing to be a Christian, openly taught in a public lecture that Jesus was not conceived of the Holy Spirit in a virgin, Mary. And though I felt uncomfortable, I justified it to myself and continued on with him as my supervisor.


In the end I not only had an academic relationship with Loren but also had table fellowship with him and his wife. And, equally bad, I introduced my wife to the couple. And we stayed at their place.


Then one day, a greater tragedy happened. We joined them at their church, because their youngest son (not a child), was going to get baptized. My moral compass had been lowered and I no longer made wise judgements.


On the drive to the church I found out that the church’s “minister” was engaged in a life of same-sex sexuality. And I stayed silent. (I should have asked for my hosts to pull over and allow for my wife and me to exit the vehicle.)


But it gets worse. It was communion Sunday. And, in this meeting, people went forward for communion. I didn’t want to be embarrassed by sitting out. And also I was more concerned with what those around me thought than God’s own opinion (and the reality of the created world).


In that religious ceremony. In my heart, in a moment, I forced a justification to myself — well, I thought, God accepts sinners, so since we are all sinners, therefore a minister could be habitually involved in same-sex sexuality. But the Bible has stringent criteria for leaders (e.g. Titus 1, 1 Timothy 3).


So I took communion from a false teacher, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. That is one of the memories that I least enjoy. But God offers more grace!


It takes time to come out of the depths, when you have plunged yourself into them. But have no fear! God is extremely merciful. Yet, I cannot tell the full story here of the process of the restoration of my moral compass — and, with it, the innocence of my relationship with God. It has taken some time.


Now I endeavour with all my being to walk in God’s righteous ways. I take the Bible for what it says. I’ve stopped trying to twist it all up, to get it to say what I want it to say. And now I try, also, to obey all that is written. This is the path to life – repentance and obedience.


And, of course – as for all who truly follow the Lord Jesus – for me, too, there are lots that still need change and need to be surrendered.


Now I have a passion: to teach others God’s good ways. And what better way to do that, than by helping people to read the Scriptures in their original languages? Actually, I have another passion. It’s related. I am passionate to help others to teach the languages of the Bible and its marvellous contents to others (and to equip these people to teach yet others).

(This blog post has been edited, slightly, on Friday, Dec 20, 2025.)


Kosovo

I have removed the blog post entitled “Kosovo,” because of things I said about certain persons. I deeply regret confronting these people in this public manner. I had not followed the procedure spelled out by Jesus in Matt 18 (which requires progressively wider circles, for confrontation, before making something public). I spoke judgements and a curse. I was not merciful, not kind, not honouring. I humbly ask for forgiveness from the persons involved. I pray for a blessing on all who I wrote about. And I apologize for the effects on yet others, who read the blog.

This note was modified, with additions, on Sunday 4 February 2024.

 

Four Greek Words Christians Should Know

I recently did a series of very short interviews with Dawn and Steve on their morning show for the radio station of Moody Bible Institute. They invited me to choose four Koine Greek words that appear in the New Testament that I thought would be good for Christians to understand better. So which ones did I pick? εὐαγγέλιον (euaggelion: “good news” or “Gospel” or “message”), ἐξουσία (exousia: “authority”), πορνεία (porneia: “sexual immorality”) and οἶκος (oikos: “house,” “family”). The interviews are delightful and educational. I think you are going to like it!

 

You may enjoy the way I approach understanding these four terms. They are perhaps particularly appropriate for our current cultural moment. And there may be some surprises. But I won’t give a spoiler here. You’ll have to listen to the interviews. Please note: the interviews are split up into two videos on YouTube. I pray you will be given insight and inspiration as you listen.


Video one

Video two


At one point, I give a call to this generation (end of the last interview) on how we can follow the way of the Lord in our day. Steve says that I did a mic drop – boom. Have a listen.

In the meantime, here is one tangent that we got onto at one point. I thought it would be worth reproducing here –

Steve: “Why do you think it is important for Christians to have a basic understanding of some of these Greek words?”

Jordash: “We love the Scriptures. We value them. We believe that these are the most important words that have ever been written on the planet. Correct?

“I’m going to ask you: which Imam in Islam at a Mosque does not read the Quran in Arabic – and could not do it? Which Jewish rabbi throughout the centuries at a synagogue could not open the Hebrew Bible and read it in Hebrew? You’d be hard pressed to find some.

“So, we want to up our game a bit. If we value the Scriptures, especially as leaders and pastors and seminary professors – we want to be able to pick up the New Testament and read it as though we were reading it in our mother tongue. That’s the goal. If we fail in this generation, then let the next generation get there.”

I can summarize the take away from the interviews as this: following God in our generation means, especially, repentance (returning to God, turning from evil), submitting to his authority, abstaining from sexual immorality and building a family. Let’s do it!

Many thanks to Moody Radio’s “Dawn and Steve in the Morning,” both the hosts and the supporting staff, for giving me the privilege of sharing from God’s Word to their broad audience.


Teaching New Testament Greek For Spiritual Formation

I recently gave a talk entitled “Teaching New Testament Greek for Spiritual Formation” at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, in San Antonio, Texas (Wednesday 15 Nov 2023). I’m posting here the initial part of the handout, as text, below, and also providing the deck of slides from the presentation. (Both have been modified, slightly.) I hope it will be a benefit to teachers.

Preliminary information

The presentation is based, in part, on Instagram reels produced by ΟΜΙΛΕΙΝ: https://www.instagram.com/omileingreek/

The series of reels begins here: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cv3uNgSLA8i/

I hope it will be a benefit for you, as you seek to abide continually in the Vine, Jesus, producing fruit for the Gardener, our Father.

Introduction

Can the Koine Greek classroom where the New Testament is studied be a place where learners are transformed more into the image of Christ? I believe that it can – and should be such a place. Knowing the Scriptures more intimately, in their original languages, should lead to the most profound spiritual transformations – both for student and teacher. So how do we take our curricula in Greek courses in a direction that fosters growth of character – commitment to Christ and imitation of him?

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) enables teachers and students to spend more time focussing on the content of what is said in the New Testament in Koine Greek, while still paying attention to grammar, sentence structure and so forth, though leaving it in its proper, secondary place. For this reason, CLT offers a wealth of possibilities for enriching learners’ appreciation of the New Testament’s message, at a highly transformative level.

CLT also facilitates great(er) comprehension of the intent behind a text. So, the meaning jumps out. Thus, the Scriptures’ ability to impact a learner in obedience to God’s word is multiplied.

This presentation looks at one example. Greek allows access to Old and New Testaments in a unique way. This presentation explores how CLT Greek learning enables – and encourages – the formation of Christ-like character, namely through meditation on and internalization of core truths in Scripture about our identity.

Scripture offers us many, reinforcing answers to the question “Who am I?” These can be internalized in three stages (all done in Koine Greek):

1) Meditation on / memorization of a short phrase, culled from the language of the Bible, that encapsulates a core truth

2) A brief discussion of this truth, using simple language

3) Finally, mediation on / memorization of the relevant verse

Who you think you are will have a profound impact on how you conduct yourself. Meditation on key passages, involving memorization of short phrases, enables learners to increase their self-awareness in Christ, giving the Spirit room to transform them.

The quest to understand who we are is pursued best, when placed within the contours of God’s grand scheme for the created world and people he loves, from creation through to the age to come. The belief undergirding this approach is that only as we abide in Jesus’ teaching (and Scripture, generally) do we know the truth so that it may set us free. I will go into Greek from here, addressing you all, as a group. First, a prayer, in Greek….

Download the presentation slide deck here –

Version with English translations

Version with Greek only

 

Are you a Koine Greek instructor? Are you interested in teaching Greek in Greek? Would you like to make spiritual formation a more central component of your pedagogical approach? Consider joining the διάβασις Program (January 2024 – May 2025):

 

What is in a name? Hearing the word “pastor,” again, as though for the first time…

When you hear the word “pastor,” what immediately comes to mind? What related words jump out at you? Can you list four or five right now? Perhaps words like “teaching,” “preaching” or “church” – possibly even “marriage” or “funeral” – may come to mind. Or words such as “prayer,” “ministry,” “small group” or others may arise for you. What scriptures come up for you, when you hear the word “pastor”? Perhaps Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to be ready, in season and out of season, to preach the word (2 Tim 4:2)? Perhaps the qualifications of leaders (elders) in letters to Titus (1:6–9) and Timothy (1 Tim 3:2–7)? Or the mention of pastors among the five types of key leaders listed in Ephesians 4:11? What scriptures from the Old Testament come to mind, if any?



It’s not that any of what we’ve just listed is wrong, per se. It’s not. But is it the full picture? And have we put front and center the most important aspects of what it means to be a “pastor”? And how does being a pastor relate to the over-arching scope of the Scriptures? To answer some of these questions, let’s begin by taking a look at what the word “pastor” in Greek means.

So what’s in a name, anyway? In Greek the word that typically gets translated as “pastor” is poimen (ποιμήν). This words means, literally, “shepherd.” It is the word most commonly used in the New Testament for “shepherd.” Is that important? Certainly. When an ancient Greek-speaking person heard the word poimen, an image would immediately come to mind. The same effect would happen, today, if we were to introduce a (preaching) church leader, saying “This is our shepherd.” One gets, immediately, a picture of a caring individual who tends to a flock of precious, needy sheep.


Knowing just this one thing changes a lot in our understanding. Now what Scriptures come to mind, as we think about “pastors”?


 

How about Jesus’ reinstatement of Peter, after the resurrection, imploring him to feed his sheep (John 21:15–17)? As a pastor, Peter was learning, to love Jesus means to feed his sheep.

 

Or how about Jesus’ encouraging words to his “little flock” not to be afraid – for God longs to give them the kingdom (Luke 12:32)? Jesus sets the role model for pastors to encourage their flocks about God’s good intentions for them.

 

Or what about the deep compassion Jesus has on the crowds, because they seem to him like harassed sheep without a shepherd (Matt 9:36)? His compassion motivates him to pray to God for more workers to be sent out. Following Jesus’ approach, a pastor would see crowds, even those being misled, with compassion, as needy, harassed sheep.

 

Surely, we can’t forget about the Good Shepherd (John 10:1–27)? The shepherd loves his sheep very much: he would rather die, when danger rears its ugly head, than let his precious little flock suffer harm. This is a potent example for pastors – Jesus’ own suffering and death, on behalf of his flock.

 

And what of Simon Peter’s encouragement to leaders to carefully tend the flock as under-shepherds, following the example of Jesus, the Chief Shepherd? Peter writes, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory” (1 Pet 5:1–4, ESV). To be an elder is to “shepherd” or “pastor” others. And this, Peter makes clear, is to gently lead others, especially by offering to go first and setting the example of the direction that the flock should be going in.

 

What about Paul’s encouragement to the Ephesian elders that, as “overseers” they should carefully “shepherd” (Greek: poimainein – ποιμαίνειν) God’s church (Acts 20:28). This action word is closely related to the noun “pastor” / “shepherd” (poimen – ποιμήν). Those shepherding should, in particular, protect the “flock” (poimnion – ποίμνιον) against fierce wolves that will try to devour sheep, causing divisions in Christ’s body (Acts 20:29). (As you can see, in Greek the word for “pastor” is closely related to the word for “flock,” as well.)

 

How about Jude’s warning that there are false teachers in his day who are like shepherds that just feed themselves (Jude 12)? A true shepherd must care deeply about the health and well-being of the sheep, not just himself.

 

Finally, we can add, even the birth of the Great Shepherd was heralded by shepherds (Luke 2). Only they were found worthy to experience an angelic visitation that night, announcing Messiah’s birth, with the sign that the Messiah would himself be found lying in an animal feeding trough. God indelibly punctuated the greatest leader’s birth with the notion of him being honoured by those of humble stature, those who slept, as it were, without a home. They experienced hardships, to tend their flocks. They stayed faithfully by the side of their flocks, protecting them. In these ways, of course, the shepherds prefigured what Jesus himself would most be like in his own ministry.

 

Here’s another question. What Old Testament passages come to mind, now that we are thinking of “pastor” correctly as shepherd? Psalm 23, no doubt. God himself is a great shepherd. He takes care of our needs and makes sure we have a good drink and get fed. He leads us even in the most trying of times. And he stays faithfully with us.

 

Psalm 95 declares that those set apart by God and true to him are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand.

 

Some of the greatest leaders of all time had their beginnings among flocks of sheep (and other herds of animals). Of course, there is David. But also, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons. All tended sheep and goats.

 

And how can we forget Moses? After trying to deliver his people in his own strength, God put him in a 40-year training school – as a shepherd! Later, God appeared to him, revealing his great call on his life, when Moses was tending sheep (Exod 3:1). And for his entire career, Moses would use his shepherd’s staff as the symbol of his leadership and authority. This is a different kind of leader. He is willing to offer up his own life to save his people from judgment (Exod 32:31–32)!

 

David, too, is called by God while he is tending sheep (1 Sam 16:11). Many times, God reminds David and others that their faithful king was drawn from tending sheep, to care for the people of Israel (ex. 2 Sam 7:8). Like Moses, David would also rather undergo suffering himself rather than see the punishment that God was bringing upon the nation (1 Chron 21:17).

 

Alternatively, in Psalm 2, we see a different aspect of David’s shepherding. As the Psalmist celebrates God’s call of David to be king in Jerusalem, God promises David all of the nations of the earth as his inheritance — he is to “shepherd” them with an iron staff (Psalm 2:9). There is great hope for every nation. But, this image depicts that, ultimately, there will be punishment for those nations that do not choose to follow God’s ways, but rebel against God and his “anointed one.” This anointed one is Jesus, the gentle Messiah.

 

A prophecy from Isaiah describes how God leads his sheep tenderly, even carrying the young ones in his arms and not rushing the mother sheep, full of milk (Isa 40:11). This aptly depicts Jesus, does it not? Our shepherd is merciful, knows the needs of his sheep well, and meets each of us exactly where we’re at.

 

When Moses sees the land of Canaan, from the top of Mount Nebo, knowing he is not permitted to enter, he acts as a shepherd. Rather than complain about his lot in life, he prays that the Lord to raise up and establish a new leader in his place, lest Israel be left like a flock of sheep without a shepherd (Num 27:17). This is a great leader who is more concerned with the flock than with his personal privileges and legacy. (God chooses Joshua, not one of Moses’ children.)

 

Ezekiel prophesies that the leaders in his day are like evil shepherds, who only feed themselves, but do not care for the needs of the sheep (Ezek 34:10). The sheep ended up scattered, because they were as though without a shepherd.  As a result, Ezekiel declares, God himself will shepherd the sheep properly. He will seek out the lost and bring them back. He will bind up the injured sheep and strengthen the weak.

 

When a faithful prophet of the Lord, Micaiah son of Imlah, finally prophesies the ultimate punishment for Ahab, the most wicked king in Israel up until that time, he speaks of him as a shepherd, albeit a failed one. Micaiah says that in a vision he has seen all of Israel scattered like sheep without a shepherd (1 Kings 22:17). In a short time, Ahab dies in battle.

 

In another vein, elsewhere Zechariah prophesies about our Messiah, Jesus, saying that God himself will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered (Zech 13:7). In fact, Jesus states this very prophecy on the night he is betrayed, foretelling his coming death (Matt 26:31; Mark 14:27). Jesus receives the punishment that is reserved for wicked leaders of God’s people.

 

Do you see how many scriptures come together when we simply begin to think of the term “pastor” in its original meaning?

 

But it is not just that reams of scriptural passages come to mind. There is an interconnectedness of the image of shepherd that God uses throughout all the pages of Scripture. First of all God himself, but also Moses, David, Jesus, Peter and so many others are all shepherds. It is, perhaps, one of the ruling metaphors in the Scripture, especially as a pertains to leading others. But that interwoven tapestry, that nexus of meaning, is simply lost on us, when we hear the English word “pastor.”

 

Years ago, “pastor” would have been mentally connected to “pasture.” So, a rural and, well, pastoral image would have come to mind. But today, for most of us, that is no longer the case (unless, perhaps, you are a linguist or language enthusiast or typically conscious about word origins). And, today, if the association does come up in one’s mind, it would likely be just for a moment of intentional reflection, but not persistently or automatically.

 

But, you don’t have to be a linguist to know a language. You just have to be human. We are all made in God’s image. And God is a God who speaks. In fact, speech is one of God’s chief characteristics. It is one of ours, too.

 

This brief look at the word poimen (ποιμήν) is but one example. There are many… many more. And when you read the New Testament in its original Greek, as your basic means of approaching the text, then you will find again and again that your knowledge of the Scriptures is greatly enriched and amplified. There is also an exponential effect, as gems of insights coalesce together and build upon one another. And if you put into practice what you learn, by the power of God’s Spirit, you will certainly achieve the ultimate goal – you will know God better!

 

It is well worth your investment of time to learn biblical Greek. Come learn with us at ΟΜΙΛΕΙΝ!

 

What were they doing in Sodom? The story according to Judah.

Judah (conventionally “Jude”), traditionally understood to be a brother of Jesus, makes an explicit statement about the sexual deviance of the notorious people of Sodom. What exactly did he have in mind? What does his particular use of language refer to? And why does he choose the phraseology he does?

As Judah begins to unpack his central theme – namely, that his readers should be on guard against false teachers among them and contend for the faith that has been entrusted to them by an earlier generation – he writes a lengthy sentence, giving three examples from the distant past of groups that have deviated significantly from God’s ways and perished. (In English translations, commonly the sentence is broken up, to make for easier reader processing.) He writes (Jude 5–7), “5 Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, that the Lord, who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great Day. 7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (NRSV).

 

Judah makes it explicit that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah and their environs were sexually immoral. No new information here, for researchers or anyone else. However, the question of just what kind of sexual immorality is envisioned is beset with some difficulty, owing to the turn of phrase ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (apelthousai opiso sarkos heteras) in Jude 7. The New Revised Standard Version renders this, we see above, as “pursued unnatural lust.” Is this sufficient? At the crux here is the term “other flesh” (σάρξ ἑτέρα – sarx etera). But the whole phrase is important in this case. What other translations are possible? Or, more pointedly, what translation would be most conducive to communicating the full sense of the phrase?

 

In his commentary on Jude, notable New Testament scholar Joerg Frey claims that “the desire for ‘different flesh’ seems to refer to sexual relations between angels and human beings” (page 91). How likely is this interpretation? Prof. Frey adduces two principal lines of reasoning here. First, he alleges, homosexuality is not in view in the biblical text itself (Gen 19), nor in most of the history of interpretation of this passage among ancient Jews. Second, he finds a certain parsimony in the correlation between the angel-human sexuality of the waywardness of the Watchers (the term commonly used for the fallen angels mentioned in Gen 6.1–4) and the proposed angel-human sexuality of the people of Sodom. Here Prof. Frey appeals to a perceived economy of explanation, given the explicit correlation that Judah makes between examples two and three in his triad of warnings of judgement from the distant past.

 

Prof. Frey has done many good things for this scholar, so I owe to him it to address his claim, respectfully and in some detail. I gladly do this for him and all who are interested.

 

First, I observe that the key to understanding what the author of our text has in mind is to pay careful attention to the wording. I note that the line of reasoning adopted by Prof. Frey does not in fact give substantial attention to what is said and how.

 

Second, in line with this approach, I note that the subject of the third example (Jude 7) is not merely the people of Sodom. Rather, Judah refers expressly to Sodom and Gomorrah, by name. This is actually how the wickedness of the region is introduced in Genesis, be reference to God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, specifically (Gen 13.10). The reference of the two cities, as a pair, occurs frequently in the Tanach (Old Testament), especially when referring to their proverbial wickedness, generally, (for example, Gen 18.20; Isa 1.10; Jer 23.14) or their destruction (Gen 19.24, 28; Deut 29.22; Isa 13.19; Jer 49.18). But the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are not indicted together in the specific instance of God’s messengers visiting Lot in Sodom and being assaulted by the citizens there. Rather, only the people of Sodom are involved in that instance (Gen 19.1–22).

 

In fact, Judah speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities. Actually, the phrasing used is more precise than even that. Judah speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities surrounding these two cities (Jude 7): Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις (Sodoma kai Gomorra kai ai peri autas poleis). The phrase “surrounding them” (περὶ αὐτάς – peri autas) means that the additional cities lie in the vicinity around both Sodom and Gomorrah, not just Sodom.

 

We know the name of these cities. Four cities – Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim – are all destroyed. (The fifth, implicated city in the Jordan River’s plain, named Zoar, is spared, on account of Lot’s petition – see Gen 19.18–22.) The four cities are mentioned by name in Genesis (Gen 10.19; 14.2, 8), as well as in Deuteronomy (Deut 29.22). In Genesis 10 the cities are introduced, as descendants of Ham, through Canaan. But there is no narrative. In Genesis 14 the cities, along with Zoar, the fifth city, are mentioned in the context of a battle. In Deuteronomy 29 the idea is that this territory’s inhabitants’ sins, collectively, are so great that they incur divine wrath, resulting in widespread devastation. Their destruction is narrated, in brief. This provides the sort of conceptual framework within which Judah draws upon the four cities – great sin and destruction.

 

What are the implications of this phraseology: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities surrounding them”? Simply put, Sodom is not squarely in the center. Rather, Sodom and Gomorrah are. Or, more precisely, all the cities involved are the subject of the sentence. Thus, they are each indicted by Judah’s description of the sexual immorality. But in the story in Genesis 19, as I have noted above, only the men of Sodom are guilty of making a threat of same-sex sexual assault on the angelic visitors of Lot (who themselves look like men). This makes sense, since the angels come to Sodom to investigate the city, as a case in point, to confirm or disconfirm the cry about the whole region that has come up to God (Gen 18.21). So, even in Genesis, the sexual deviance in the city may well be taken as an example – albeit a salient one – of the sexual sins of the whole region. (In Gen 19, Sodom also evidences its inhospitality, hatred of humans and further sins – a host of deviances that are stacked up one on the other. But, for Judah, sexual sins are front and center.) This appears to be the best explanation of Judah’s characterization of the region, too: namely, all the cities are guilty of similar sexual activity and appetites. For Judah, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim’s sexual sins do not correspond directly to the specific incidence narrated in Gen 19, on the eve of the great destruction, but fit a conception of on-going patterns of sinful, sexual appetites and behaviour. This correspondence is confirmed by other factors, which I will now address.

 

Third, Judah refers to the pursuit of, as noted, “other flesh.” What does “flesh” (σάρξ – sarx) typically refer to, when it comes to persons? Humans? Otherworldly beings? At its basic sense, the word σάρξ (sarx) refers to, as one dictionary puts it, “the Muscular Part of the Human or Animal Body” (Theology Dictionary of the New Testament).

 

When sarx refers to an individual or group of individuals, mortals are in view. Humans are commonly such mortals. For example, a prophecy in Isaiah, cited in Luke 3.6, refers to “all flesh,” by which it is meant all humans. Isaiah 40.5 reads: “The Presence of the LORD shall appear, And all flesh, as one, shall behold— For the LORD Himself has spoken” (JPS). The phrase in Hebrew (כל בשר – kol basar) is rendered in Greek, in the ancient translation that is called either the Old Greek version or Septuagint version, as πᾶσα σάρξ – pasa sarx. The meaning is the same: “all flesh,” wherein “flesh” means, by extension, “human.” Luke 3.6 uses the same phraseology for “all flesh” as what appears in the Old Greek of Isaiah 40.5.

 

That example is not an isolated one. Many instances of “flesh” in the Scriptures have the same sense. (Note that the Hebrew בשר [basar] is commonly rendered by Greek σάρξ [sarx] in the Tanach [Hebrew Old Testament] and Old Greek version, respectively.) God is grieved that all flesh, meaning all humans, have corrupted their ways (Gen 6.12). Jeremiah announces that God has a legal case against the nations and, stated in parallel, he is engaging in judicial process against all flesh, meaning all humans (Jer 25.31).  Even when other living creatures are meant, earth-bound, mortal creatures are in mind. God determines to wipe out all “flesh” – here it is meant animals and humans, with the exception of those in the ark – with the flood (Gen 6.13, 17). God provides food, faithfully, to all flesh, meaning all earth-bound living creatures (Psa 136.25 – or 135.25 in the Septuagint).

 

The point that a sense of mortality is often attached to “flesh” (in both Hebrew and Greek) brings to the fore the way that the term is used in conscious contradistinction to other terms. The Psalmist boasts confidence in God, the immortal one, eschewing the potential threat of danger from “flesh,” meaning mortal humans (Psa 56.4–5). A similar contrast occurs in Jesus’ affirmation of Peter: “And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven’” (Matt 16.17; NRSV). Simon did not learn that Jesus is the Messiah from human-based instruction (“flesh and blood”) but from divine revelation (“my Father in heaven”). The mortal, “flesh,” is contrasted with the immortal, God. Even when “flesh” means something more specific, like “the body” (of a human), it may still be contrasted in context with God, who is immortal. Isaiah 10.18–19 makes this mortal/immortal contrast, speaking of God as a fire and the soul and body (“flesh”) of humans as an object that God can and will destroy.

 

Outside of biblical texts, too, the language of “flesh” as earth-bound, mortal humans, in contrast to otherworldly, immortal beings is found in ancient Jewish thought. 1 Enoch 1.9 refers to God and myriads of his “holy ones” (meaning celestial beings aligned with God, such as angels) coming together to earth, as God convicts “all flesh” (meaning humans) for the wicked deeds and words of humans.

 

On occasion, other-worldly beings, too, may be denoted by the term “flesh.” Ezekiel 10.22 speaks of the Cherubim’s “flesh.” But on account of its rarity, this instance stands out and grabs one’s attention (just one instance is found in TDNT).

 

The consideration of “flesh” (σάρξ – sarx) alone makes it highly likely that Judah is referring to human beings when he speaks of “other flesh.” The picture of citizens of four cities being involved in the same pursuit (point two, above) only strengthens this reading. For, if four cities are pursuing “other flesh,” then the fact that angels (who appear as humans) are in the specific scene described in Gen 19 is not of paramount importance and, as a result, the already highly improbable reading that “flesh” here means something like “the body” of immortal angels becomes categorically implausible. But if “flesh” refers to mortal humans, which already it seems extremely likely, then what humans are in mind? And how are they “other”? That is to say, if the people of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim pursued certain flesh in favour of other flesh, what flesh were they rejecting in order to obtain “other flesh”? This question leads us to a fourth point.

 

Fourth, what is the best understanding of “other flesh”? The word ἕτερος (eteros) here rendered in English as “other” sometimes has the same force as the word ἄλλος (allos), meaning “one more” or “another” or, generally, an item that is similar too, but distinct from, another item mentioned. Alternatively, ἕτερος (eteros) can indicate an item that is dissimilar in kind or class from some other item or items mentioned – in this case we might render the word with “different” (or “another”) in English. But there is a more precise sense that is likely felt here. The general principal is that a word (lexeme) does not derive its specific sense independent from its context. And in the phrase in question (Jude 7), the citizens of the four wicked cities are leaving (ἀπελθοῦσα – apelthousa) something (unspecified) in order to follow after “other flesh.” So the adjective “other” corresponds to the implied object of the verb ἀπελθεῖν (apelthein – “to leave”). In short, the cities’ citizens are leaving one flesh – which presumably they have been with or attached to for some measure of time ­– for “other” flesh.

 

This sort of usage of “other” (combined with the notion of abandoning X in order to pursue Y) is rife in the Tanach (Old Testament), also in the New Testament. For example, the people of Israel abandon their own God in order to follow “other” gods, who do not belong to them. As for the language used in such contexts, Hebrew typically will employ “other” (אחר – acher), which in turn will commonly be rendered by ἕτερος (eteros). Judges 2.11–12 serves as a case in point: “And the Israelites did what was offensive to the LORD. They worshiped the Baalim and forsook the LORD, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They followed other gods, from among the gods of the peoples around them, and bowed down to them; they provoked the LORD” (JPS). The people of Israel forsake the God of their nation in order to worship the gods of other nations. They follow, more specifically, “other gods.”

 

The words in Hebrew make the contrast clear – the “God of their fathers” (אלהי אבותם – elohei avotam) is replaced by “other gods” (אלהים אחרים – elohim acherim). The words translated “God” and “gods” are in fact the same word (in Hebrew what is, in fact, a plural noun is often rendered as “God,” when the context is appropriate, simply because English does not naturally have a language feature whereby a singular, divine being would be referred to in the plural). The class (“god” = אלהים – elohim) is the same. The modifying word makes all the difference: “other” (אחר – acher) means here, by extension of the basic meaning, “foreign” or “not belonging to (the party in question).” The “gods” are “other” because they are not Israel’s – Adonai is Israel’s god.

 

The same factors are, essentially, at work in Greek, too. (The one difference is that “God” is represented by a singular noun and “gods” by a plural noun.) The Israelites forsake the Lord, “the God of their fathers” (θεὸς τῶν πατέρων αὐτῶν – theos ton pateron auton) in order to follower “other gods” (θεοὶ ἕτεροι – theoi eteroi). The class (“god” = θεός – theos) is the same. The modifying word (“other”: ἕτερος – eteros) indicates that the gods that are newly being followed do not belong to the Israelites.

 

This is the best sense of what is happening with the term “other” in Jude 7. The citizens of the city are abandoning flesh that rightfully belongs to them for flesh that does not belong to them. The men are abandoning their wives for “other” sexual encounters. What could Judah possibly have in mind, when saying they are “other”? One possibility is other peoples’ wives (even one another’s wives). Another possibility is same-sex sexual activity. But angels are not a viable possibility. For angels are not of the same class (“flesh” meaning “mortal” or “human”).

 

A number of factors support the idea that same-sex sexuality is in mind. There is an explicit correlation between verses six and seven. That is, the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities are guilty of sin in a way that resembles what the fallen angels did in an earlier period. Our author writes (Jude 7): “Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust….” The principal aspect of correspondence, marked by the particle ὡς (os), rendered in English as “likewise,” brings together the two, related, on-going judgements that the fallen angels and the citizens of Sodom and environs have experienced. (The angels are kept chained in darkness; Sodom’s people are completely obliterated, with no descendants until Judah’s day.) The other part of the correspondence, marked by “in the same manner as they” (τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις – ton omoion tropon toutois), pertains to sexual deviance. But how are the two groups related?

 

They both abandon one thing, which suites them, for something that does not suite them. In this they choose wilfully, against God’s design. The angels abandoned (Greek: ἀπολιπεῖν – apolipein) their “proper dwelling” (ἴδιον οἰκητήριον – idion oiketerion) in heaven, in order to possess, it is implied, “houses” on earth. A “house” (both in Hebrew and Greek) can be both a physical dwelling and a family. The angels choose “houses” – in the basic and extended sense of the term – on earth, by cohabitating with human females. They crossed a boundary God had made between heaven and earth. And, more specifically, they crossed a sexual boundary God established. Angels and humans are not to have sexual encounters. It is unnatural and forbidden.

 

In the same way, a clear parallel would be that the men of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim abandoned their own wives, proper flesh, to pursue “other” flesh, sexual encounters that are forbidden for being unnatural and not part of God’s design. Theoretically, such sexual activities might be incestuous. These would be unnatural. However, given the clear precedent in Gen 19 (a case in point for a larger, envisioned problem in the region), same-sex sexuality is the most probable option here.

 

This reading of “other” as meaning “not belonging to” those involved and, correspondingly, something unnatural fits with ancient Jewish conceptions of homosexuality. Many Jews that were contemporaries of Judah (and Jesus) spoke about the topic of same-sex sexuality. They all disapproved of this form of sexuality. And, among their lines of reasoning, Jews commonly claimed that homosexuality was unnatural and, therefore, must be forbidden. (We see this reasoning in 2 Enoch 10.4 (longer recension), Pseudo-Phocylides 190–192, Josephus, Against Apion 2.199, Philo, On the Life of Abraham 135 and elsewhere.) This is a line of reasoning that Paul clearly resonates with (Romans 1.26–27). It would make sense if that same concept is undergirding Judah’s conception of “other” here.

 

Fifth, the actual activity of the people of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim is pertinent. What does it mean that they “go after” certain carnal relations? The concept represented by this phraseology is commonly one of following, meaning determined pursuit of or commitment to something.

 

In the Tanach (Old Testament), also in the Old Greek translation of it, and in the New Testament, a verb of motion (different verbs might be employed) and “after” indicates this sort of animated, intentional following. In Greek, a particular preposition for “after” commonly appears (Greek: ὀπίσω – opiso). The example from Judges, cited above, can prove illustrative again. “They followed other gods” (Judges 2.11; JPS) means the Israelites committed themselves to these false gods. The phrasing in Hebrew reads, more literally, “and they went after other gods” (וילכו אחרי אלהים אחרים – vayelchu acharei elohim acherim). Here the verb for motion (the most basic word for “go”: הלך – halach) is accompanied by the preposition “after” (אחרי – acherei). This is the typical sort of phraseology used to express this concept. The Old Greek translation uses similar phraseology: a basic word for “go” (πορευθῆναι – poreuthenai) is accompanied by “after” (ὀπίσω – opiso). This, too, is typical phrasing for the concept in question. The Greek phrase is a very wooden rendering of the Hebrew one (Greek has “and they went after other gods”: καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ὀπίσω θεῶν ἑτέρων – kai eporeuthesan opiso theon eteron). Here the commitment is clearly a sort of alliance or decided preference for something (over and against something else).

 

Other examples could be added. For the present, I will just cite one more where the Old Greek translation of the Tanach employs both terms in question in Jude 7, namely “after” (Greek: ὀπίσω – opiso) and “other” (ἕτερος – eteros) where a contrast between what is properly one’s own and what does not belong to one is found (Deut 8.19).

 

In Genesis 19 we see a clear preference for same-sex sexuality over male-to-female sexual activity. When Lot offers his daughters to the horde of crazed men – whether this offer is real and panicked, a tragic move of cowardice, or sardonic and meant as a shock to “wake” the men out of their frenzy, I leave for the time being – they refuse it, in preference for the male guests. But the contrast is not merely between hosts and guests. For the mass of Sodom’s men threaten that, after they are finished with his guests, they will turn to assault Lot, too (Gen 19.9). And they threaten Lot alone here – not, say, Lot and his daughters. So the men’s appetite for other men is persistent. The sons-in-law of Lot, too, prefer to participate in the group’s indulgence of anticipated male flesh over and against being with their lawful, female companions in marriage and escape the impending doom (19.12–14).

 

And, given the broader context in Genesis, the preference for same-sex sexuality comes into greater focus. For it will not be forgotten that Lot’s uncle, at the time named Abram, had rescued all the wives of Sodom’s men from captivity by foreign overlords, prevented their deportation and returned them safely to their married counterparts (Gen 14.21–24). But, later, in Gen 19 these same men have no regard for their natural marriage partners, eschewing them for “other” flesh, namely men that have innocently entered their domain. And all the city’s men – the text is insistent and emphatic about this point – are present and participating in the heinous threats against Lot and his male guests (Gen 19.4).

 

Given this rejection of male-female sexuality for male-male sexuality in Gen 19 (presented as a microcosm of a larger problem), Judah’s characterization of the cities as having a decided preference for and commitment to (“following” / “going after” / “pursuing”) “other flesh” makes sense. The men in all these cities, as the text of Genesis shows for Sodom, prefer male-male sexuality. Many may be married to women – how else would the population continue without male-to-female sexuality? – but what they really want is male flesh. They prefer this, as a society.  

 

This understanding of Judah’s text has the added benefit that it corresponds to the views of numerous ancient Jewish authors and preserved traditions, which all affirm that Sodom was guilty of same-sex sexuality, understood as something forbidden. (Relevant here are, for example, Philo, On the Life of Abraham 135, Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.194, 2 Enoch 10.4 (longer recension), Testament of Naphtali 3.3–4, Sifra on Lev 18.3.)

 

A concluding consideration regards the pair of concepts pertaining to abandoning X and following Y. I have mentioned it briefly, above. But this concept (and related expressions of it in both in Hebrew and Greek) commonly pertains to abandoning commitment to one thing for a decided commitment to something distinct. Again, our example from Judges 2.11–12 hits the spot: the Israelites “forsook” (Hebrew: עזב – azav) God in order to “go after” (הלך אחרי – halach acharei) other gods. The Old Greek translation renders similar phraseology: God’s people “forsook” (ἐγκαταλιπεῖν — egkatalipein) him in order to “go after” (πορευθῆναι ὀπίσω – poreuthenai opiso) other gods. One commitment is exchanged for another.

 

In Judah, the two concepts are represented, in combination, in the same verb. This happens because the verb of motion that is attached to “after” (ὀπίσω – opiso) is the same verb that expresses “going away” or “abandoning” (ἀπελθεῖν – apelthein). The phrasing is more economical, but the basic sense remains the same.

 

For illustrative purposes, we can take a look at a similar turn of phrase that shows up in a Gospel. When Jesus calls the sons of Zebedee, we learn that they respond immediately (Mark 1.20): “they went off after him” (ἀπῆλθον ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ – apelthon opiso autou). With economy of style, Mark communicates two distinct concepts: the two brothers left their father (and their careers) behind and they followed Jesus. They left one commitment (familial, economic and trades-based) for another one (being itinerate students of Jesus). This sort of phrasing and accompanying sense – expressing an exchange of one commitment for another – are very probably what we find in Jude 7.

 

But there is no indication in Gen 19 that the men of Sodom (or others) are making a commitment to abandon human-human relations for human-angel relations. (Indeed, the men of Sodom do not even know that Lot’s guests are angels.) The only sense that works here is abandonment of natural relations (male-female) for unnatural ones (male-male).

 

Multiple lines of reasoning, therefore, taken together, contribute to an understanding that cannot reasonably be doubted – Judah conceived of the citizens of Sodom, Gomorrah and their surrounding cities as guilty of a decided preference for same-sex sexuality. This understanding, then, has profound implications. They are profound, because our New Testament author not only understands, along with Paul, that homosexuality is sin, but also that the narrative account in Genesis surrounding the destruction of the cities in the plain of the Jordan River were guilty of pronounced commitment to same-sex sexuality. We need to be very careful to listen Judah’s words, for he invokes Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim as a grave warning of judgement to come, for all those who, like them, pursue this kind of sexual immorality. Let us heed his warning. And, as teachers in the church, let us certainly not guide people towards this type of sexuality but away from it!

 

I’d like to make a personal appeal here. Joerg, I really care about you. I miss you. You’ve done so much for me. You helped me get access to resources and a place of my own to sit and work in the University of Zurich, while pursuing my PhD research for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, yet living in Switzerland for family reasons. You helped me in aspects as I wrote my doctoral dissertation, though you were not one of my advisors. Then you were one of four readers of my dissertation – providing helpful feedback. You helped me, of course, publish my first book. You have continually believed in all my abilities. You supported me getting my first research position. Later you afforded me also a teaching position at a university, also putting your neck out for me on that one, to enable me to teach ancient Greek as a living language there. You’ve invited me to speak at conferences. (I wish I would’ve accepted more of those invitations. And you were right that perfectionism was crippling me then.) You’ve mentored me. You invited me to be your Assistant (similar to an assistant professor position), but for various reasons I declined (largely health-related). We’ve connected together around the world at seminars, conferences and other events – Israel, Europe, North America. And you have made gestures of friendship to me. We’ve hiked in the Swiss Alps together. You’ve had me to your place and entertained me there and elsewhere on numerous occasions. At times, you have let me into your confidence, and we have even had some open, vulnerable conversation. I miss you, Joerg. I miss you signing off your letters with “dein Joerg.”

 

Why have you become so closed to me? What have I done to you, personally, that has been so bad??? When I emailed a particular publisher in February of 2021 (cc-ing you) to apologize for how I had mis-stepped at one point, you thanked me for such a moving email. Later, Monica, your wife, and I had a video-conferencing call. Then, for about a year, as I tried to reach out to you, you made yourself very scarce. I was telling you that there was something I wanted to talk with you about. But it wasn’t a priority for you. (You replied back once, yes, as a place holder. And I also should have, I believe, emailed you more persistently.)

 

When we finally connected via a video-conference call last May (2022), we spoke for over an hour. Thank you. It was an unhurried, respectful conversation, was it not? You even opened up and told me things about your ailing mother.

 

I told you then that I was writing a book about Jesus’ traditional take on same-sex sexuality. I heard more about what you thought and learned that you had already given a lecture on the topic on same-sex sexual relations in the Bible for a Synod of the Swiss Reformed Church (October 2021). So, you had more to say than what you articulated in your published Zehn Thesen (“Ten Theses”), posted online in support of same-sex relations in the Christian faith. I requested to read what you wrote and I offered to send you a summary of the main line of reasoning for my prospective book. You agreed on both accounts. And you agreed to meeting again, for further conversation on the topic. Within a few days you sent me your text. I sent you mine. After that, I never heard back from you. You ghosted me. Or, at the very least, you never followed through with your word. Had I done something wrong? You also would not tell me, if I had.

 

Then, as the Society of Biblical Literature conference approached in November, I reached out to you. You said it “would be nice to see you.” Yet your email also admitted what I had suspected, you had gone silent on me. But your rationale was convoluted – you accused me of being “emotional” but not “scholarly.” But you did not engage with a single point I had raised.

 

When we saw one another in Denver in November, we hugged. You were in a wheelchair. You told me about injuring your foot and your subsequent surgery. I felt concern for you. At the same time, I told you that I believed you were involved in false teaching and that the time for us to dialogue was getting very narrow now. You told me that in the end you wanted to talk with me. You agreed that we would continue a conversation, only online. You asked me to give you a few weeks, until you were back in Switzerland and set up with a routine, and you would reach out to me to set something up. But you never scheduled anything. And you never contacted me. Once again, you totally backed out on your verbal commitment to dialogue with me. This is very hurtful, very disrespectful. But I am more worried for you – you are cocooning, stopping up your ears, unwilling to speak to even those who would take great patience and gentleness to talk with you. This is not the posture of a scholar and person of integrity. This is cowardly.  

 

A few weeks ago I called you on your birthday, using multiple apps to try to get a hold of you. You never responded to acknowledge that I have tried to reach out to you. What can I say? You’ve ghosted me. You’ve also broken your word multiple times.

 

Your behavior leaves me so confused. Why hug me in a public setting in November and agree to speak with me later, only then to ghost me? This sort of ambiguous and mercurial behavior is very unbecoming of a professor of your stature. But more than that, it’s a personal slap in the face. Have I become nothing to you, and in so short a time, and with no explanation? But more than that — I have only wanted to engage your mind, critically, and your sense of ethics. What could possibly be the problem here? I don’t understand why you’re so afraid – for your behavior looks like it is fear-motivated – to hear another person presenting his research and to seek the truth.

 

Joerg, people these days present being nice is all the rage. I think it’s highly overrated. Wouldn’t you agree? Being kind is good – but “nice”? Don’t your scholarly demeanor and sensibilities give you impulse to consider reason and truth over what is commonly called being ”nice”? Where is the rigor? Where is a commitment to robust original language study and accurately situating texts in their historical context?

 

While being nice is, I believe, distasteful, being kind is of perennial importance. But kindness has a different quality to it all together. I am being kind to you. Here’s how. You have lit your own house on fire – and it is a blaze. If I were nice, I would never embarrass you. I might say “What pretty flames!” or “You have acquired some effective skills in pyrotechnics” or, generally, “Fire produces warmth and light – yay!” Instead, I am more concerned about you than I am about upsetting any social expectations that would keep me silent. What I am saying is this: “The house you’re in is on fire. Get out of it. Indeed, you may well have lit it on fire by yourself. But, at this point, who cares? That’s not important now. What’s important is that you need to save your life. Run from the flames an exit the faltering structure of that edifice.”

 

Is that not kindness? You have to understand that Judah uses Sodom and Gomorrah as an enduring testimony to an impending judgment, by fire, that Judah proclaims God will meet out on all the inhabitants of the earth, save for those who embrace the kingdom of God (as Judah articulates it). Judah insists he is faithfully transmitting this understanding of the kingdom to his readership. By denying Judah this claim about Sodom and Gomorrah, you are, in fact, turning into the very sort of teacher that he so passionately calls out in his letter.

 

Jesus warns that those who lead others astray, especially the little ones, are in especially grave danger of a fiercer judgment (Matt 18.6–7). Beware. Return to God. Leave this false teaching of supporting same-sex sexuality among Christians.

 

And please don’t turn to mockery in order to respond to what I’m writing. Judah also warns that the false teachers he has in mind are characteristically mockers (Jude 18). If you mock what I am writing, you will follow precisely along the path of the false teachers Judah opposes. Here’s the thing – mockers cannot win with sound argument, and in fact they turn to ridicule as a way to shore up public opinion, to fortify their position in their own mind. But mockery, as a habit, can never do justice to the truth. In the case of scholarship, and, indeed, theological truths, one has to look at the evidence, applying reason.

 

But, I am afraid, what Judah has said of his opponents, sadly, is true now of you: you have become a waterless cloud. I don’t have time here to address the key points of your Zehn Thesen with more detail. But, it is clear to me, that what you have written is riddled with logical inconsistencies, as well as containing theoretical and factual problems.  With all of your esteemed positions as researcher, editor of monograph series, organizer of conferences, having an important chair in New Testament studies at a world class in research Institute – with all this, you have the appearance of being a mighty rain cloud, ready to fertilize the land and produce life for many. But in fact, when it comes to teaching about sexuality, there’s nothing of substance there. Nothing to water the parched ground of the minds and souls of those who listen to your words. Just hot air.

 

Your house is on fire. Run while you still can. No one knows the day or hour that their life will be snuffed out. Certainly not someone who has lit his own house on fire and smells no danger. God is being merciful to you. You have another day. “O that today you would listen to his voice! Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness” (Psa 95.7–8; NRSV).

(The Greek text for the New Testament is taken from The Greek New Testament, Copyright © 2017 Tyndale House, Cambridge. Used by permission of Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved.)

(The Greek text for the Septuagint is taken from Septuaginta (Greek Edition), edited by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.)

(The Hebrew text for the Tanach (Old Testament) is taken from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4th ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990.)

Note: this blog post was edited lightly on Saturday, 25 March 2023, mostly for clarity, but also to make a few minor corrections in biblical interpretation.