Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες, καὶ μὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσματα, ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ.

1 Cor 1.10 SBL Greek NT

One of my pet peeves is the habit of preachers to work through a Pauline letter, half a verse at a time, for months on end. I don’t deny that much can be drilled out of scripture in this way; but no one is thereby going to actually understand what Paul was talking about.

Take the verse above, and let me give you my ‘literal as possible and annotated’ rendering:

I summon you (a legal courtroom term) brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (ie that is my authority for doing so), in order that you should all be careful to recount (λέγω is rarely just “say any old thing”; the fundamental part of it is intentionality) the same thing, and that there should be among you no division of opinion (rather than just “division”), and that you should be reconciled (κατηρτισμένοι has a core meaning of restoration, so the NIV’s “united” is lacking something) in the same mind and in the same exercise of intelligence (γνώμη is the power of knowing or the ‘organ’ by which we exercise intelligent judgement).

Now, I agree it is more than possible to preach for a month on just this verse; but in doing so, it is unlikely that we will ever understand what Paul is concerned to say to the Church in Corinth.

So ask yourself, how far does this particular thread run in 1 Corinthians chapter 1?

Trick question: the issue Paul is raising here runs at least to the end of chapter 4, and I would argue, through to the end of chapter 6. Chapter 7 starts with “the issue you wrote me about…” and that seems distinct.

So what am I saying?

Verse 10 of chapter 1 is not a blessed thought; Paul is about to hit them with a major rebuke, and verse 10 is telling the Corinthians what solving this problem is going to require.

The rebuke starts with the report he has from Chloe’s household, namely that they have broken into factions – “I am of Paul”, “I of Apollos”, “I of Cephas”, and even “I of Christ”.

And everything that follows is highlighting their foolishness in getting hung up on trivia, when Paul had been so careful to come to them with the message that they actually need to agree on, a message demonstrated with the power of the Spirit and centred on the foolishness of Christ crucified.

And yet, instead of being ready for solid food, the Corinthians are still behaving like babies. I will leave you to reread this for yourself, but try to stop yourself saying “oh I love this passage about x or y” and instead see up to the end of chapter 6 as a lawyer’s speech aimed at bringing the Corinthian church to repentance, and to that simple reconciled agreement around the same mind and thought, the thing that actually matters: Christ crucified, the power of God.

In closing, let me point to one terrible and persistent mistranslation that has lured far too many into the delusion of their own infallibility.

For example, the NIV has:

The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments

The KJV has:

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

What 1 Corinthians 2.15 actually says involves one important verb, first in the active voice, and then in the middle voice. How generations of translators have managed to get this so wrong baffles me.

ὁ δὲ πνευματικὸς ἀνακρίνει τὰ πάντα, αὐτὸς δὲ ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς ἀνακρίνεται.

The person who is of the spirit inquires into or examines closely all things

[ἀνακρίνω Active voice]

But they themselves dispute or wrangle with no one

[ἀνακρίνω Middle voice]

And of course Paul continues in v 16, “for who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct Him? But – we have the mind of Christ.”

And that in two verses is the heart of his answer to 1 Cor 1.10 – how do you Corinthians all get reunited into the same mind and power of thought? Yes, spiritual people ask questions about everything, and get into arguments with no one. Any of you know the mind of the Lord so that you could teach Him something? Of course not; but we all have the mind of Christ – so that is our agreement, right there!

And that is the answer today as well. Many of us seem to allow ourselves huge latitude to say “my church, my right to say what we are uniquely about”.

Time to get with the programme, people.

Jesus thinks it is His church, and that He already said what matters.

At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

Mark 13.21-23, NIV

I suspect most of us feel well-proofed against going after false Messiahs. Of course it does happen, and once you go down that pathway, it is only a moment or two until every one is shooting Senators and drinking the cyanide-laced KoolAid.

But what if we are reading that wrong. χριστός (translated in verse 21 as Messiah) simply means ‘anointing’; only by extension does it also mean ‘the anointed one’. “‘Look, the anointing is here’ or ‘look it is there’” is a little more worrying – or at least, it should be. Because that then leads on to a warning about “false anointings and false prophets, giving signs and wonders for the seduction, if possible, of the elect.”

As Jesus said, “see it guys: I have told you everything beforehand.”

So how does one keep oneself safe?

Trust the Spirit in your spirit; if your spirit is uneasy, take that very seriously.

And watch how people handle scripture. What people who are teaching in the Church say should stand up to you checking it out in the Book. And yes that is getting harder, the more flakey translations and deliberately tweaked paraphrases there are floating around; but if you need wisdom, ask God for it and He will give you what you need.

Let me give you a real example: someone I was listening to quoted 1 John 4.17 “as He is, so are we in this world” (ESV). Look it up and you will see that the context is all about perfecting love, and that love casts out fear. But instead of using this verse in context, the speaker used it more like Aleister Crowley (the 20th Century satanist) saying “as above, so below”. They then suggested that since Jesus is coming back as a roaring lion, so we should become more aggressive and combative and so on (which was about the point where my spirit was so disturbed, I turned them off.)

My biggest worry is that even in my sharing this much, you might be seduced. Please don’t be. There is so much wrong with this.

Firstly, as I said a moment ago, the context is lost. John was speaking about love and the fact that we can be as full of love here in the world as Jesus is in heaven. He wasn’t leaving the door open to Christian political militancy.

Second, the speaker complained that Christians are too much influenced by Jesus as the lamb when they need to be like Jesus the Lion. I have bad news for them. The only reference to Jesus as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (which itself is a reference back to Genesis 49.9) reads like this:

Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain…

Revelation 5.5-6a, NIV

What John saw in heaven was fulfilment of prophecy. The Lion of Judah was the prophecy; but when he looked, there was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, as the fulfilment now revealed. It simply isn’t biblical to say Jesus was a lamb, but He is now coming back as a roaring Lion.

To follow this speaker’s injunction requires that we overthrow everything Jesus and His disciples have actually instructed us, in favour of aligning ourselves with a picture of angry Jesus which has no biblical basis, but is a pure piece of preacher’s sleight of hand.

How do you protect yourself? Go back and read things in context. As a Chinese Navigator friend said to me, 40 over years ago, “a text without context is a pretext”.

And for the avoidance of doubt (not to mention the avoidance of a Disney villain version of the gospel), nothing will be more terrifying than the sight of the Slain Lamb to those who have opposed Him. Satan and His hordes will squeal in despair.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

1 Cor 1.25, NIV

God simply doesn’t need to show off; God at His apparently weakest is infinitely more powerful than anyone else; even if they are posturing like a roaring lion.

And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”

Mark 11.17, NIV

I want to overview most of Mark 11 this time, from v 11 onwards. The preceding 10 verses constitute “the Triumphal Entry”. I am interested here in what happens next.

The order is this:

Jesus has a look around the temple and goes back to Bethany because it is late in the day;

Going into Jerusalem from Bethany the next day, He is hungry, goes to a fig tree in leaf and – finding nothing on it (because it isn’t the season for figs) – “it having been rejected upon examination, He says to it, “may no one ever eat from you again”. And yes, the disciples heard Him say it.

An aside; translators all ‘know’ that ἀποκριθεὶς means ‘answered’; which is the problem: over and over again it is clear that translators would do better if they left their lexical certainties (and their dictionaries of NT Greek) behind and actually did their homework: ἀποκριθεὶς has far more fundamental meanings than ‘answered’, and the one that fits is “be rejected upon examination”. Most realise it is odd to have Jesus answering a tree, so leave it out altogether. Doh!

Next Jesus goes into the temple and stops all the trade that is going on in there, and teaches – including the quote at the top of this post. In passing please note that what He says – the quotation from Isaiah 56.7 and the description of the temple as “a cavern of robbers” from Jeremiah 7.11 are both word perfect with the LXX of those passages (see my recent post for more). They all return to Bethany.

Next day, Jesus and His disciples return to Jerusalem and on the way: there is the now-dead fig, shrivelled to the roots. It took 24 hours (as opposed to the instantaneously of Matthew 21.19-22) but I find Mark’s version more compelling. When Peter calls this out, Jesus talks about faith (ie how He did this) and not what it meant; and that is very important.

Finally, when they reach Jerusalem, He is accosted by the Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders who demand of Him that He tell them His authority for “doing these things”; or “who gave Him this authority to do them”. Jesus says He will tell them if they first tell Him whether John’s baptism was of God or of man; they are too scared to answer that one, so He refuses to answer their question.

So what are we looking at here?

Is Jesus cruel to nature? Curse the fig tree for being without fruit at a time no fig has fruit? Was He teaching His disciples how to do extreme landscape gardening? “This mountain looks terrible from my balcony, let’s throw that into the sea…?”

The truth is that all the little episodes (biblical scholars call them pericopes, especially when doing synoptic study across the Gospels) are broken up in our bibles, each with their own heading; but they are far more connected than that.

Here is the meta narrative:

Jesus goes to Jerusalem and to the Temple, which since Solomon’s day (barring destruction, exile and reconstruction) has been the centre of Jewish worship. There is no surprise in what He sees, but He spells out the consequences in His living parable the next day. Fig trees in leaf look extremely green and vigorous in any context, especially in a dry Mediterranean climate; but like any fruit tree, if it isn’t harvest time, there is nothing to eat. Jesus uses this as a parable of Jewish religion and Temple-centric worship: whatever fruit there has been in the past, and however fancy Herod’s temple upgrades look, there is no fruit now. The prediction He speaks over the fig tree is for all of that. No one will eat fruit from you again. 24 hours later the fig is dead and withered to the roots. Likewise the Temple and all that goes with it, will be gone shortly.

So why does He not spell that out for the disciples? Would it be too great a shock for them as observant Jews? I don’t think that is the issue at all, and we can see what is going on when Peter says “wow, Lord, look at the fig tree…”

As I mentioned above, Jesus deflects what could have become a discussion of “what it meant” to an explanation of “how you do this kind of stuff”. And I think the obvious reason is that if He had spelt it out – the Temple is coming to an end, from now on the very Spirit of God will dwell in men – there was a real danger that Satan would have finally caught up with the plan. As usual when that is of concern, Jesus employs misdirection for effect.

But very clearly the whole fig thing wasn’t about an innocent fig tree.

He clears the temple of traders (I have written a whole post about this, and see no evidence that He ran around like a wild man, whipping and slashing; turning the tables upside down was like a McDonalds employee putting chairs on tables: “we are done for the day”.) Then He teaches what the Temple was meant to be – a house of prayer for all the nations (meaning a house into which all the nations could come in order to pray – except that the court of the gentiles was full of traders now); but you have turned it into a cave of robbers. He stopped the offence to His Father’s house (for a day, maybe a few? There was nothing to stop them coming back…) but said absolutely nothing about restoring the Temple as a house of prayer for all the nations.

That time is past. Nobody else knows it yet.

So to finish with the questioning of His authority to “do these things”, just note that there are two questions the Chief Priests and their posse ask Him. What authority (meaning scripture or the words of an accepted rabbi); and failing that, who gave you authority?

The truth is that Jesus has both on His side; every word spoken by God and recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures show that He was right and they were in the wrong; and He was commissioned by the Glorious Father whom they claimed to represent but didn’t.

But He wasn’t about to tell them that, at least not directly. Instead He asks them a question which demonstrates that they are nowhere near being on God’s side, and which therefore they are unable to answer without severe personal hazard. “Tell me about John’s baptism…”

So, to summarise, this is not a group of curious little actions and sayings. This is the most consequential commentary upon a system whose time is now over, and which has fallen into its final moral abyss. The question about John’s baptism is significant; John the Baptist was, Jesus says elsewhere, the final positive act of the Law and the Prophets.

Henceforth, it is all about the Kingdom, and the religious elite are a complete and irrelevant back number for this next chapter.

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.

Matt. 11.12, NIV

“The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.

Luke 16.16, NIV

This post is a first draft for the beginning of the Introduction to my next book on the Kingdom, to see if it will fly. So let me explain why.

To a fault, I am someone who always feels he has to explain things from first principles; in other words, as a logical progression. Like everything there is a time and a place for that; learning a new model of programming language, for example.

And yet it seems that the Kingdom of God is different. I say this despite all the efforts to make it a programmatic subject; I am simply looking at how Jesus spoke to, and interacted with people.

Essentially He was happy to spend most of His time, confusing the heck out of His disciples and His audience; and their response? “You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6.68b) They were drawn in despite – or more likely because – there was so much they didn’t yet understand.

Look for a moment at the two short passages above; Jesus speaking in both cases. I think that the Luke passage has been better handled by the translators than the Matthew one; and that is simply because there is less potential ambiguity in Luke. “Everyone forces their way into it” is a perfectly reasonable rendering of πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται.

Picture a queue to buy limited tickets to the latest pop sensation – but not in a calmly queuing British-origin culture. Or imagine you are in a burning theatre; you can sit quietly and politely in your seat; or you can force your way out that one tiny exit over there… βιάζεται is a good verb for both cases – provided you read it in the Middle voice (“everyone forces themselves”) rather than Passive (“everyone is forced”).

So we might read Luke 16.16 like this:

The Law and the Prophets until John: since then, the Kingdom of God announces itself, and everyone forces themselves (their way) into it.

And yes, εὐαγγελίζεται (announce good news) has the same Middle / Passive choice; I think the experience of the people following Jesus was that the Kingdom was positively shouting out – not just being announced.

So what has happened with the Matthew passage? it is a famous conundrum – but only because everyone assumes βιάζεται is Passive voice, rather than Middle. And it is a conundrum only because none of the translators seem to understand the Kingdom.

So try this version of Matthew 11.12:

From the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of God breaks its way through, and men of action grasp it.

And the key difference in my version is that the very forceful word, ἁρπάζουσιν, is rendered as ‘grasp’ rather than ‘take by force’ – and grasp covers both physical laying hold of something, and “to grasp something with the mind”.

So here is the first key for anyone who wants to lay hold of whatever “the Kingdom of God” is: the Kingdom doesn’t explain itself, it just rolls forward and breaks down obstacles; the philosophically minded may be perturbed, but people who are forceful and action-oriented recognise it and lay hold of it.

So who will this new book be for? Whoever you are, and wherever you are coming from. It isn’t going to try to change your religion or your morality or your social status, because that isn’t how the Kingdom rolls. (And trust me: it does roll.)

But imagine you are a homeless person (and maybe you are); if someone gives you a $20 million mansion, they aren’t demanding that you stop being a homeless person. But now you have options. You can choose to remain homeless; but why would you? So I am not promising that you won’t confront the need to change; but that will be on you, not me. None of my business.

As with Seeing the Kingdom, there will be Greek; don’t let it put you off. It isn’t necessary for you to read the Greek in order to engage with what we are talking about; but I need to shift the discussion from its traditional and sometimes rather inaccurate paths, so I have to show my working.

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”

Mark 9.42-50, NIV

I am sure I was still at school the first time I heard someone tell a congregation that a skandalon (σκάνδαλον) was a stone block in a doorway, designed to make an attacker stumble as they entered, thus opening them to a killing blow to the head or neck. As one does, I simply believed what I was told.

I am a little more critical now. As far as I can see dictionaries all repeat this fiction in a vague sort of way, without ever being able to reference a single occurrence where the word clearly references such a stumbling block.

So here’s the thing* : a σκανδαλιστής is “an acrobat who swings on a trapeze” (yes, trapeze is another Greek word, but refers to the geometric shape and also that famous trapezoid, a table); but σκάνδαλον is actually the word for a trapeze, and also the kind of snare that an animal puts it head through and finds itself swinging from. Yes, like an acrobat who has made a fatal error on a trapeze.

By this point, you may be wondering where this is going, but there is a point to this: Jesus uses the associated verb, σκανδαλίζω, throughout the first part of this passage. And whether you choose to believe that it is about stumbling or about being ensnared, I don’t think “cause to sin” is a helpful translation.

I guess my point is that “sin” is the responsibility of the sinner at the end of the day; and I don’t think that Jesus is saying that “these little ones who believe in Him” are committing sin. I fear we are too quick to blame the victims, which makes us more like Pharisees than believers.

To start with, He is talking about a person who ensnares one of these little ones who believe in Him. Is He talking about small children or about His disciples? Who cares. If you do this – whichever group you do it to – it would be better for you to have a donkey mill tied around your neck, and be cast into the sea. That is a combination of unbreakable harness and an unbearable weight – and deep dark water. I can only say: we have all been warned. Jesus never made an empty threat.

Then Jesus references three “excuses” for sin. Funnily enough, He doesn’t reference Flip Wilson’s Geraldine character (“the Devil made me do it”), so it doesn’t seem like even the Pharisees tried that one. But He does give three cases where it seems reasonable to assume ‘the religious’ were employing these excuses. Each one starts with an implicit “it wasn’t my fault…”

My hand ensnared me; my foot ensnared me; my eye ensnared me. In other words, “I did something, went somewhere, or gazed upon something I shouldn’t have.” Jesus essentially says, “if that is really your excuse, better you cut it off / gouge it out than end up in the fire of Gehenna.”

Before you take any drastic action: I don’t believe Jesus was actually advising self-mutilation. Rather He was calling the bluff of those who thought they could disassociate themselves from responsibility for their sins. Your hand does nothing without your consent; nor does your foot or your eye. Since actions have real consequences, you had better take responsibility for yours. And no, that is not the whole answer; but the Pharisees are going to have to wait before the way of salvation will become clear for them.

So what about the last two verses, 49 and 50? I think we actually have three sayings here, that have been placed together by rather questionable word association.

“Everyone must be salted by fire” is where the trouble starts: I have covered the double meaning of ἁλισθήσεται in the Seeing the Kingdom book, regarding the “salt” saying Matthew 5. Yes, one version of ἁλισθήσεται does mean “make salty”; but its more common homonym means “gather together”. So here I think it is Jesus’ final word on the preceding passage: whether you are blaming your hand or foot or eye, better cut it off / out lest you end up in fire – Πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται. “For all these in the fire will be gathered together.”

So that is not about “being salted”, even if it has been read that way. We now have two half sayings which do mention salt and which I am sure Jesus said; but probably not together.

καλὸν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται, ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε. This reads like someone who heard Jesus make His joke about “salt / wits becoming foolish” and didn’t understand, so recounted it with a different word. Here “salt is good but if it becomes unsalty, how will it be seasoned?” Which is true, but maybe not the whole story.

And finally, probably also referencing salt as a metaphor for wits, “have salt (common sense) in yourself, and live at peace with one another.” If Jesus did indeed speak those two sayings together, they still represent two separate thoughts.

You may be thinking this is not the most inspiring post I have written; and I am happy to agree: this one is mostly trying to tidy up a bit of a mess. But the warning at the beginning is one to take to heart. Whoever you are, and however important you think you are, ensnaring one of His little ones who believe in Him will not be overlooked.

*I was disturbed to find that that phrase – “here’s the thing” – is regarded as a sure fire telltale of “AI slop”; I can only assume that AI has read everything I wrote since I was about 6 and that this is where AI gets it from; I promise you I could always pass a Turing test…

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ.

Mark 9.29, SBL Greek NT

Apologies for the clickbait title, but the full version would say, “which was Jesus’ focus: casting out demons or forming His disciples?”

The verse I have quoted is universally translated as if it is about demons; but it can only be about disciples. And yes, it is another example of Jesus using misdirection for effect.

The disciples have come to ask Him, privately, why they couldn’t cast out the demon that had made the boy mute, and which regularly made him roll about and foam and croak (not shriek).

One assumes that the disciples heard Jesus’ answer in the same way every translator has heard it: this kind of demon only comes out by prayer (or by prayer and fasting, if you follow the minority of early papyri).

So what is the problem?

When did Jesus pray in order to cast out this demon? And why did the disciples not record that, with everything else in this story?

You should – we all should – be going just a minute! What is going on here. Jesus never prayed (let alone fasted) for this demon to come out, and yet He is saying that’s how you have to do it for this type of demon!

And, of course, He isn’t.

There are two parts to the disciples’ question. “Why couldn’t we“ and “why couldn’t cast it out”, if you like. Everyone seems to have assumed that Jesus was answering a question about casting out demons; but I think there is no doubt that He was answering the “why couldn’t we” question.

γένος has a hard time from translators. By default it is always translated as “generation” (as in “this wicked generation”) except here, when they can’t use generation of demons so translate it as “type”.

Both of those equivalents are at best marginal. γένος actually means “house”, “family”, or “race”. I think most of Jesus’ use of the word could be best construed as “people”, meaning Israel or the Jews. Here though, I think it is more specific, and I would use “house” or “family”.

Why couldn’t we? Jesus sighs and says, “this house (meaning the citizens of the Kingdom of God on earth) can only come forth (ἐξελθεῖν) through prayer”. In other words, “I am praying for you guys, why do you think I disappear up the nearest mountain before dawn every day. You will get it. Oh, and casting out demons? That is easy, just pay attention.”

And maybe Mark or his source got the message in the end, which is why they didn’t try to insert “Jesus praying for the demonised boy”.

And there is a bigger issue here, which I won’t try to tackle at the back of a post; but Jesus’ number one and only key objective prior to the cross was training the disciples. “Hold on – what about all the people healed and set free”. Sure: so as to train the disciples.

Put it this way: if all Israel had been healed and delivered, and the disciples not trained – we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Once there are disciples who make disciples who make disciples and who all know what the Kingdom looks like and how it operates: everyone gets healed.

But not vice versa.

During a recent camping holiday, I sat every morning in front of our tent with my espresso pot of coffee and a copy of Isaiah in the Septuagint version; as one does.

The Septuagint is interesting for various reasons. According to the stories it was translated by 70 (hence LXX) or possibly 72 (but it is never called the LXXII) scholars from Hebrew into the Greek of the day in the 3rd Century BC. It differs somewhat from the Masoretic Text (MT) – the version of the Hebrew OT we have now; but the MT was only finalised between the 6th and 10th Centuries AD, so potentially the LXX reflects a Hebrew manuscript tradition that is 1000 years older than the MT.

And of course we just don’t know – are the differences just translation artefacts, or were the scholars translating a Hebrew text that was a little different? All we do know is that differences in biblical texts are real and creep in for all kinds of reasons – tired copyists being the most easy one to understand.

But yesterday I was prompted to go back to my holiday running translation of Isaiah 54 – and this time I noticed something I hadn’t noticed at the time.

In the MT of Isaiah 54.2, the whole verse appears to be about a tent: enlarge the place of your tent, stretch your tent curtains wide, don’t hold back, lengthen your cords, strengthen your stakes. Sitting in front of my tent I guess I wasn’t predisposed to see anything else. But the LXX is a little different.

πλάτυνον τὸν τόπον τῆς σκηνῆς σου καὶ τῶν αὐλαιῶν σου πῆξον μὴ φείσῃ μάκρυνον τὰ σχοινίσματάσου καὶ τοὺς πασσάλους σουκατίσχυσον

“Make broad the place of your tent” sounds pretty much like the Hebrew, but makes the notion of tents needing flat space more overt – πλάτυνον relates to the word for street, a broad flat space between houses.

The next phrase is a little different though. The verb πῆξον is about “driving in”; τῶν αὐλαιῶν σου could be “your curtains”, but how do you drive in curtains? The more natural reading is “screens” – usually woven out of some lightweight but strong material such as reeds or flax, and designed to stop or deflect missiles from hitting the tent or building behind them. “Drive in your screens” makes sense, as does “don’t spare yourself”- ie do this work with diligence.

What about the cords and stakes? Here they are not the cords and stakes of a tent, but rather about establishing and maintaining territory.

μάκρυνον τὰ σχοινίσματάσου is “lengthen” – but not simple cords. σχοινίσματάσου is the land measured out specifically by a cord of set length. So it is “lengthen the cords with which you are measuring out your land”.

And τοὺς πασσάλους σουκατίσχυσον ? I can’t find any references to πασσάλους as tent pegs; they are boundary pegs; and the verb σουκατίσχυσον is strengthen, but so as to prevail over anyone who might oppose.

So the picture is not just “here’s how to set up your tent”, which is kind of how the Hebrew of the MT comes across; it is much more about how to set up your claim on a place to live; make a broad place for your tent, drive in the defensive screens, don’t spare yourself, use longer ropes to measure your plot, and put in your boundary pegs like you mean it.

The context is the same in both the MT and the LXX; the barren woman rejoicing because she has more children than the woman who has a husband; and they are going to need somewhere to live – especially as they are going to “unfurl” (the LXX verb) to the right and the left, inherit companies of men, and dwell in desolated cities.

And as Paul says in Galatians 4, this is a picture of the Kingdom and of the heavenly Jerusalem, as opposed to the old covenant under the Law.

Oh, and did I mention; when Jesus and the Apostles and Evangelists quote scripture, they largely seem to use the LXX. I don’t have any big point to make here (because this all defies simplistic judgements); but I did find the LXX version of Isaiah 54.2 personally helpful.

Enjoy!

οὐχ ὅτι καθ’ ὑστέρησιν λέγω, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔμαθον ἐν οἷς εἰμι αὐτάρκης εἶναι· οἶδα καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι, οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν· ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν μεμύημαι, καὶ χορτάζεσθαι καὶ πεινᾶν, καὶ περισσεύειν καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι· πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με.

Phil 4.11-13, SBL Greek NT

This passage of Philippians has deep personal significance for me; reading it in the Greek completely changed my understanding of the Kingdom of God. And before you jump to the conclusion that this was where I learned to be content in every situation: no, not so much.

Immediately beforehand, Paul thanks the Philippians for once more sending him a gift; afterwards he says “yet it was good of you to share with me in the pressure (τῇ θλίψει). What on earth comes between verse 10 and verse 14?

Here’s my rather literal rendering of vv 11-13:

It is not from lack that I say this, for I have learnt, in whatever case I am in, to be self-sufficient; I know how to be humbled, I know how to be over and above; in everything and all things I have been initiated into the mystery, whether eating my fill or going hungry, overflowing or coming up short; I prevail over all things because of Him strengthening me.

As ever with Paul, his Greek is hard to render precisely into good English; precise or good, choose one. But what is unarguable is that αὐτάρκης has never meant “contented”, not when William Tyndall mistranslated it in his groundbreaking English translation of 1525; and certainly not when every other English translator since just copied Tyndale. αὐτάρκης means self-governing and by extension self-sufficient, and the equivalent English word, autarky has passed straight into the field of political economy with meaning unchanged.

And Paul says that what he has learned – to be self-sufficient in whatever situation he finds himself – is a mystery into which he has been initiated. Paul uses the perfect passive of the verb μυέω, to be initiated into a mystery, in v 12; Jesus uses the related noun, μυστήριον in Mark 4.11 – the secret (mystery) of the Kingdom of God. In both cases this is the language of pagan so-called “mystery religions”; and yet both are happy to use this language.

And what is the mystery? How is Paul able to be self-sufficient in every situation? I would argue that Paul’s mystery is one and the same with what Jesus said of the disciples, and which they surely did not understand at that point; the mystery is Emmanuel: God with (and now in) us.

If God is in me and He has assigned me to do x or go to y, and I haven’t any money or food; seriously, how can a little lack stop me? I can do this.

Or as Paul says, I prevail over all things because of Him strengthening me (from the inside!)

Τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, ὅσα σεμνά, ὅσα δίκαια, ὅσα ἁγνά, ὅσα προσφιλῆ, ὅσα εὔφημα, εἴ τις ἀρετὴ καὶ εἴ τις ἔπαινος, ταῦτα λογίζεσθε· ἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε καὶ ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί, ταῦτα πράσσετε· καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἔσται μεθ’ ὑμῶν.

Phil 4.8-9, SBL Greek NT

In the previous post, we looked at what the peace of God will do for you (be held over and above your thoughts and emotions in protection); this time we are looking at what seem like practical instructions for ensuring that the God of peace will be with you.

And I am not suggesting that this is about “how to behave in order to win God’s favour”, because that isn’t it; rather I think Paul is helping his readers ensure that nothing unsavoury can get in and disturb their relationship with the Father.

“For the rest, brothers, whatever is…” – well, what? And why? Unlike us, Paul and his readers lived in a time when one nation held (rather brutal) sway over most of the known world; and under that power structure, all kinds of immorality and violence and injustice had to be endured at every level of society; and the news – in this case, just what your friends and neighbours passed on to you – could be pretty distressing.

And yet Paul doesn’t suggest that as believers it was our job to sort it out; he apparently has no mandate to take dominion over society, or fix what is wrong in the world; he just wants his brothers and sisters to walk with the God of peace. So they are to λογίζεσθε – count or reckon upon, properly a term applying to numerical calculations – upon whatever is:

ἀληθῆ – “true” is the watered down option, fine for a first year Greek class but not really what it means. “Transparent” or “without anything concealed” would be better, because the word literally means “without forgetfulness”, a-privative plus lanthanw / lethw, as in “the River Lethe”. It is what is true, no matter how much you walk around it and examine it. (Not “true” because someone from a troll farm posted it on Facebook or Reddit.)

σεμνά – “worthy of reverence”; this word was used extensively of the Greek and Roman gods, and of their temples and rites, and by extension of the august within society. “Noble” loses the sense of divine awe.

δίκαια – “observant of rules and norms”, which in this case I think we should assume are the laws of the Kingdom and how it operates – Paul was not there to promote Roman laws and customs. “Right” is way too flattened out to convey this.

ἁγνά – “pure, chaste, undefiled” – and, in those senses, “holy”

προσφιλῆ – “dear or beloved”; the associated verb means to approach so as to kiss.

εὔφημα – the word means “uttering sounds of good omen” which in practical application usually meant “abstaining from saying inauspicious things”; in other words, not saying things that would bring the house down around your ears. If you have been following this blog for long, you will know how much Jesus majored on this subject.

“And if something is ἀρετὴ” – goodness, excellence and even prosperity

“And if something is ἔπαινος – praise or commendation

“… reckon with these things.”

“And whatever you learned from, received from, heard from and saw in me, do all these things. And the God of peace will be with you.”

I mean, this is Paul, in two short verses, summarising how to have a truly Good life; personally I find this both challenging, but also – full of the peace of God.

And enjoying the constant presence of the God of peace seems far, far better than inviting in the demons of anxiety and fear and offence and FOMO – no matter how broken, oppressed or unfair society seems to have become.

Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε. τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς· μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε, ἀλλ’ ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετ’ εὐχαριστίας τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν· καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

Philippians 4. 4-7, SBL Greek NT

Paul’s letters are usually directed at some specific situation, usually contentious, and mostly unknown to us; this keeps an army of theologians happily engaged in trying to reconstruct the scene of the accident (ie the situation he was addressing – was it gnostics or people claiming this or that, or libertarians or… what?), while the rest of us just try to make sense of his long sentences and trains of thought.

Which means that some of the best encouragements (and most profound yet approachable insights) are to be found at the end of the letters, ie after Paul has delivered his payload and is relaxing and just being himself again. Even better when it is the end of what is already a pretty happy and non-controversial letter like Philippians.

I would have quoted the whole of Philippians 4 except we would be here all week. Here is my reading of those 4 verses, with some short notes…

“Rejoice in the Lord always! I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your kind approach be known to all men. The Lord is near; let nothing make you anxious, but in everything, in prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requisitions known to God; and the peace of God, which is held in protection over all thought and feeling, let it keep watch over your heart and your mind in Christ Jesus.”

Philippians 4.4-7, my rendering

Nothing contentious about “Rejoice”, but just remember who this is and how much he has already gone through; and he is able to say “rejoice – always!” This is lived experience, not window-dressing. The ability to rejoice whatever the situation is a kind of litmus test of relationship with God by the Spirit. If we can only rejoice with a tail wind and a downhill run, that rejoicing rings a little hollow.

τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν is hard to find an English equivalent for, but is well established in Greek philosophy and thought. It means operating from the spirit of the law, rather than according to the letter thereof. The NIV says ‘gentleness’, I have said ‘kind approach’, but even that needs to be expanded in order to come close to the meaning of the Greek. It includes the notion of being reasonable; and is the exact antithesis of the “culture wars” narrative that seems to prevail across the church at present. Any action considered in the light of ‘letting τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν be known to all men’, is going to surprise them with its kindness, reasonableness and gentleness. That is what we are to be known for, according to Paul. (And you can be reasonable and still stand your ground, using your authority. It is anxiety and fear that drive us to unkindness.)

“In petition” (τῇ δεήσει) and “requisitions” (τὰ αἰτήματα) are not common to our understanding of prayer. Prayer itself (τῇ προσευχῇ) we think we understand, but as long as we still believe that God answers prayers in one of four ways: “yes”, “no”, “maybe” and “wait”, then we are really no better than the average pagan. What does scripture say? “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are all yes and amen in Christ Jesus.” So prayer is not begging to change God’s mind; it is asking Him to release to us what is already ours because of what He has already done in Christ. Hence petition and requisition; the root of petition δεήσει is “to be necessary or lacking”. So a petition is pointing out to one’s superior that something promised and budgeted for has not yet been released; requisitions (τὰ αἰτήματα) are things asked; not “please, please, pretty please” asked, but “we need x and y”. And this is why we are not meant to face anything with anxiety: just ask, knowing that we already have God’s “yes”.

And that is a non trivial change of mindset for most of us. Which brings us to the peace of God…

The peace of God, ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει over your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

Most translations simply go with the notion that the peace of God surpasses all understanding: and that is a possible reading – but not the most compelling. ὑπερέχουσα means “held over” at its most fundamental, and is used of things held over something else in protection. Imagine a father covering his child’s head with his coat and arm during a sudden hail storm; that is the peace of God held over you in protection.

Held over what, exactly? Yes, πάντα νοῦν could be “all understanding”, but this exact phrase is more usually used in classical Greek to mean something more like “all thought and feeling” or “heart and soul”. It is wider than just hard edged cognition. What needs protection with God’s peace, your cognitive processes or all the thoughts and emotions churning around inside? I know the answer for myself…

And lastly, φρουρήσει. “Will guard” just seems a little passive, and with a hint of jail or some other lock-up; the word literally means “will watch over”. And as I think Paul had discovered, when the Peace of God, held in protection over your heart and soul, detects something amiss – He speaks to alert and guide you.

For example, how many times was Paul flogged, before he finally heard the Peace of God whisper, “son, you are a Roman citizen, and no one has found you guilty of a crime; why not speak up?” – which Paul did, with dramatically different results. (Suddenly he was being protected instead of beaten).

Just an example, but Paul wasn’t speaking in platitudes; his knowledge of how God loves us was entirely practical; and so should ours be.