Tag Archives: Third Sunday in Lent

John, Language, Teaching

John 2:13-22 – Destroying the old temple for one new

Leave a comment

The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The Jews then said to him, “What sign can you show us for doing this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking of the temple of his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

—————————————————————————————–

This is the Gospel selection from the Episcopal Lectionary for the third Sunday in Lent, Year B. It will next be read aloud in church by a priest on Sunday, March 4, 2018. It is important as it is the first account of Jesus displaying anger at the disrespect that had befallen the Second Temple of Jerusalem, which was constructed originally (by Solomon, then rebuilt) to be THE house of God on earth.

In Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-19, and Luke 19:45-48, less detailed accounts of Jesus becoming upset with the presences of vendors at the Temple are found. Matthew told how Jesus drove out “all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke all then quote Jesus as saying, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’ den.” However similar that events seems, it is not the same as the one recounted by John.

I make that statement because I once sat at an Episcopalian Bible study meeting when a retired Methodist minister made the statement that John’s Gospel was the only one of the four Gospels that does not maintain the same order of events in the life of Jesus. I disagree wholeheartedly.  However, if that is some concept that has risen to explain John as a renegade or rebel, due to some (perhaps) thinking John had a scatterbrained memory, which affected the order of his Gospel of Jesus’ life and ministry, the facts do not support such a claim.

This reading is in John’s second chapter, which follows the wedding at Cana event (John 2:1-11). John’s first chapter ended with Jesus gathering Philip and Nathanael as disciples, to go along with Andrew and Simon (called Peter). John was the only Gospel writer not to tell of Jesus spending forty days of fasting in the wilderness, like the other three writers do. However, John said the same as the others, when he wrote, “After [the wedding at Cana Jesus] went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days” (John 2:12), which spoke of Jesus moving from Nazareth to Capernaum.  The other Gospels have the chronology of events; they simply recorded a second time that Jesus was witnessed being upset over vendors on the Temple steps.

It was in Capernaum that Jesus then called Andrew and Simon from their fishing boat and then called James and his brother John of Zebedee from their father’s boat, leaving him to fish the sea with hired hands. John did not write of this calling (an indication that John was not the same person as the brother of James, not a son of Zebedee); but his statement that Jesus, his mother, brothers and disciples only stayed in Capernaum a few days, that says the calling of disciples from Capernaum was to prepare them to go en masse to Jerusalem, for the Passover Festival.

I have had Bible study leaders instruct the participants that the Passover week’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem was not a yearly requirement of Jews. After the scattering of the tribes of Israel, following the fall of Israel and Judah, the “Jews” who were moved great distances from Jerusalem were only required to make a pilgrimage once a lifetime. The presumption is that Jews who relocated in Galilee after their freedom from Babylon were likewise freed of any obligation to go to the Temple in Jerusalem each year, because it took several days to walk there.

In my mind, this an American Christianization of ancient Judaism, where it becomes important to see the holy people surrounding Jesus as akin to Americans that forego church attendance, if there is some vacation planned [like multi-yearly pilgrimages to fun resorts, where one’s religion gets left at home].  I have watched priests rush to finish a service because it is NFL Sunday, and a local team’s game is soon to begin.  The sad thing I have realized is that American Christians tend to justify their lack of a desire to study their religious texts as if God had blessed them with a birthright as babies, and children’s church taught them everything they need to know personally.  Beyond that, priests and ministers are hired by the adult Christians, with the expectation they will know the details.

If that was the original plan, I wonder why Jesus did not call the hired hands from Zebedee’s boat?

In regard to this lack of religious knowledge, consider this: When one reads in the Gospel of Luke, “Now [Jesus’] parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover” (Luke 2:41), we are told this as an indication of the piety of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, his brothers. They went every year. Because it was written, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are my appointed festivals, the appointed festivals of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies” (Leviticus 23:2), devout Jews made a point of attending EVERY FESTIVAL … religiously. Knowing that, if any were to “Come and see” and “follow Jesus,” they were expected to plan their lives around obedience to God’s commandment to the Israelites, through Moses, which called for “sacred assemblies” in the appropriate places, to recognize “the appointed festivals.”

That understood, one can grasp just how swollen Jerusalem would become during those times of festival. In the Christmas story, where Joseph and Mary could not find a room at an inn, it was not due to census registration demands creating floods of people into Bethlehem. The inns were filled with paying guests because it was at a festival time, with pilgrims everywhere. Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem while they had a place to stay near Jerusalem for festival.  This means that everyone in the Jesus entourage would have to be housed while away from home.  That is a logistical reality.

Because the ministry of Jesus was just getting off the ground then, it makes perfect sense that prior arrangements had not been made for Andrew, Simon-Peter, James of Zebedee and his brother John, nor Philip and Nathanael. While Jesus, his mother, and his brothers had relatives with whom they would stay, who had homes near Jerusalem, the others would be free to find their place to housed. Thus, that first Passover of Jesus’ ministry placed himself and John (the Gospel writer, not of Zebedee) at the Temple together, while the six disciples were securing places to stay.  Thus, none of them wrote about this event.

In the turning over of the vendor’s tables recalled by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that was after Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey with her colt, when the pilgrims lined his path with palm branches and cried our “Hosanna, the King of the Jews.” For that festival event, an upstairs room had been secured for the Passover week, although there is indication the disciples were invited to visit where Jesus stayed, as they traveled together each day prior to the Passover Seder meal (the Last Supper), in and out of Jerusalem. John did not write of those days when Jesus was surrounded by his disciples, like he did when it was only him and Jesus entering the Temple of Jerusalem, when Jesus cleansed the Temple the first time.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) heads this reading selection from John as “Frist Passover – Cleansing the Temple,” which indicates there is scholastic recognition for multiple events of this nature. John stated in his sixth chapter, fourth verse, “Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near.” This was when Jesus fed the five thousand at the Sea of Galilee. By the time John began his seventh chapter, writing in the second verse, “Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near,” that end of summer festival means John wrote nothing specific of Jesus having gone to Jerusalem for the second Passover of his ministry.

None of the other Gospels speak specifically of any Passover Festival, other than the last, which would be more of an indication that Jesus went to the Temple at other times without witnesses, when he could have made similar attacks on the selling of wares on the steps. One would think Jesus regularly confronted such things, rather than only occasionally making “photo ops” appearances.

What should be caught from the verse that states, “He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” is that Luke 2:22 & 24 state, “And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord … and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

Because the sacrifice of animals was stated in Law (Exodus and Leviticus) as a necessary rite of purification, the people were required to take animals to the Temple priests for the sacrificial rites (not go to the Temple priests and hand them payment for sacrificial animals). The sale of doves was for the poor, but that really meant the poor travelers, who brought no animals with them from home, as home was too far away.

This means Jesus was not angered at the sale of animals for sacrifice. He was angered at the presence of those sellers within the Temple grounds. That presence within sacred boundaries was an indication that the Jews had become less devoted to the Laws and appreciated the marketplace meeting their needs of the commoners.  Common Jews suffered from forgetfulness, so they entered the Temple ground without the animals required.  Rather than their forgetfulness of Law causing them to lose their place in line, during busy Temple times, the Temple leaders allowed the marketplace to come into a place of convenience.

This anger should be seen as also being applicable to Christians and their churches, where I have read of megachurches are similarly desecrated places.  The equivalent can be seen as a ring of concession stands (coffee and pastries sales before service, then paninis after) around an auditorium, which has replaced a traditional nave and separate parish hall. Are not live bands on a stage (not an altar), with follow-the-bouncing-ball big screens (not hymnals), prompting people sitting in stadium seats with cup holders (rather than pews with prayer books) to sing along with dancing choirs, with the preacher reading sermon notes from a smart phone, pacing back and forth while a spotlight follows and lighting technicians change the coloring on stage to set the mood … all putting a “marketplace” in one’s face?

Is that circus atmosphere not selling entertainment as religion, in the same way cattle and sheep were sold back in the day?

Would you think passing a tray for money, rather than giving out free bread and dried fish from a basket, would anger Jesus today?

John writing, “His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me,” says either John or Jesus told this story to the disciples afterwards, causing them to remember Psalm 69, verse 9, which says, “for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.” The acts of Jesus made them recall a song of lament, over shame felt by those who proclaimed faith falsely.

They had all walked right by the same vendors, doing nothing to force the vendors and wares sellers out to where they belonged. The disciples remember that quote from guilt.  Instead of marveling at the acts of Jesus, their hearts felt shame and regret for having done nothing themselves; and that is the kind of believers Satan loves.

John then said “his disciples remembered that he had said this … after he was raised from the dead.”  They remembered because Jesus had been raised from them, who had been dead of eternal life.  They remembered because the Spirit of the man who was there was within them … as them.

When John wrote that the Jews asked Jesus, “What sign can you show us for doing this?” they referred to his acts of disrespect for the merchants, their wares and the money they collected. They wanted to know how Jesus would miraculously (a viable replacement for “sign” in translation) replace a legal demand that devoted Jews had to present animals to priests, since most were pilgrims who did not come prepared to keep sacrificial animals with them outside the Temple grounds, until needed inside.

The double entendre is the Greek word for “sign,” “sēmeion,” also means “mark or token,” which is a form of payment for the sacrifices. Since this was Jesus’ first Passover as a priest of his Father, he was new to the “Jews” who ran Jerusalem. One could have seen the question they posed as rhetorical or tongue in cheek, half laughing at some young rabbi trying to make a name for himself.  Without knowing Jesus, they saw him as trying to change a very set world, which the Temple leaders were quite comfortable with; and that (in their mind) would require a miracle worker.

When Jesus told them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” he was in effect saying the brains of the Second Temple (its leaders, who allowed merchants on the steps) were destroying it. By referring to his personal destruction as being the final straw on that camel’s back, such that after being dead for three days a real temple that housed the LORD would be raised in its place, Jesus was saying the only Temple to the LORD is a human body. That would be the resurrected Jesus, but it would also be every Apostle who would be prepared to also be the resurrection of Jesus Christ within them.

As a personal Lenten lesson, as a test of one’s faith, everyone represents the brain trust that had let the Second Temple of Jerusalem become a marketplace for unscrupulous people, in need of being whipped by a cord and overturned. Because John pointed out that Jesus was talking about his body being the new Temple raised, the same can be inverted onto the destroyers of the Temple of Jerusalem, as the destroyers of their own souls, which were housed in cesspools of carelessness and sin.

If one is unprepared to pass the test of faith, then one will ask, “What miracle can you show me for doing this?” It seems easy to be told not to sin; but a serious seeker of Christ wants to be told how not to sin. Most are comfortable with continual sin being absolved by a Temple leader spilling the blood of an innocent animal (aka: priest, minister, pastor, or preacher).

The answer is the same that Jesus gave, as being reborn as Jesus Christ is the only way to survive forty days in the wilderness. One has to happily serve God as His Son to make it that long. The hard part is dying and being dead of ego for three days, so that one’s corrupted carcass can be cleansed, just as Jesus cleansed the Temple in anger. One cannot build a new self before the old self is destroyed.

The test of that readiness can then be seen in how one accepts the current state of buildings called churches and the organizations that run them. In this day and age (mostly out of desperation for survival or the lusts for the profitability of religion), churches have become political arms of the subversives who see the blindly religious as lambs fleeced for value or those who follow their leaders as voter blocs that can be led to worship political figures. The test is then the way one answers the question: How do you display your anger that a church has been or is being destroyed by the will of men and women?

The accompanying Old Testament reading comes from Exodus 20:1-17, which is also the reading for the Proper 22 [Pentecost Ordinary Time], in Year A. It is the first Ten Commandments that God sent Moses down for the Israelites to agree to follow. For any test in the wilderness to be personally passed, those laws (and all others) must be written in one’s heart. A deep love of God and subservience to Him brings that, through the marriage of God and a human as One.  Jesus Christ becomes the love child reborn.

This is a must to achieve, because love of God is not the same as love of Church.  Modern-day churches make Jesus appear as the eraser of Laws, not the enforcer. One must have evolved through the Holy Spirit to live a life centered within the Laws, out of desire, not command.  That devotion survives all tests.

In the accompanying Epistle reading that comes from 1 Corinthians 1:18-25, Paul quoted Isaiah, saying, “The message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” That quote comes from Isaiah 29:14. One has to see the parallel of that quote and the “wise” [brain trust] that knows organizational and profitable things, but is incapable of discerning the truth of the words that tell of Jesus being destroyed by a cross, dead for three days.

There are no “signs” or “miracles” or “tokens” that can save a Church from a willful destruction, as the only “miracle” comes when one becomes a reborn Jesus Christ. To pass a personal wilderness test, one has to be resurrected, not perishing, as denial through personal will power (the intelligence of a brain) will fail miserably.

One has to be able to see the anger that Jesus holds for anyone who claims to be the house of the LORD, when one is doing little more than marketing oneself as marked for heaven. One has to be turned upside down and see all of one’s beloved money cast onto the ground, with the voice of God telling one to “get your sacrificial trinkets out of here!”

If one has not felt that fear of God within one’s head, then one is not prepared to pass a personal test of Lent.

Exodus, Language, Teaching

Exodus 20:1-17 – The vows that marry souls to Yahweh

Leave a comment

Then God spoke all these words:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

——————–

This is the Old Testament selection for the third Sunday in Lent, Year B, according to the lectionary established by the Episcopal Church. It precedes Psalm 19, which contains the verse that says: “The statutes of the Lord are just and rejoice the heart; the commandment of the Lord is clear and gives light to the eyes..” It also accompanies the Epistle from Paul’s first letter to the Christians of Corinth, which speaks of the “wisdom of God.” It also is united with the Gospel reading from John, where Jesus overthrew the vendors’ tables and said he would rebuilt the temple in three days. Several parts of this reading are also the Old Testament selection for Proper 22-A.

I have done a thorough interpretation of the eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost [2017], which was the Proper 22, Year A choice. It is posted here under the title “The Ten Commandments.” found by a search of this blog. Because that reading selection for Proper 22-A omits verses 5-6 and 10-11, I will focus more closely on the words of those verses here; but please read the other interpretation for a whole view and a more standard view of this special covenant.

As a reading selection for the ordination season after Pentecost, the focus is solely placed on the laws that one should have written on one’s heart, as a standard way of life for one being ordained into ministry for God. The verses omitted are then more focused on the Law being an external document of an agreement between God and the Israelites, which was brokered to them by Moses. Thus, as a reading selection for the third Sunday in Lent, Year B, one should see this as a natural continuation of the theme of covenants between God and holy men: Noah; Abram; and, Moses.

In this reading selection, verse 1 is very easy to skip over and leave alone. To read, “Then God spoke all these words,” it is assumed to be an accurate translation that leads everyone to listen and hear God speaking to Moses. However, in this translation is the scholastic error of ignorance that takes the plural form of “el” [a lower-g “god”], which is “elohim” [the lower-g “gods”], and translates it as the upper-g “God.” That is not what begins this reading.

The Hebrew of verse 1 begins with two words that are separated from the remaining five words [plus the letter samekh, which denotes the end of the verse]. Those two words are [placed from left to right, not as the right to left as is Hebrew]: “וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֔ים” [“way·ḏab·bêr ’ĕ·lō·hîm”]. Those two words have been translated as if saying, “Then God spoke,” when they say “and will speak gods.” This is an important beginning to grasp.

The Hebrew word “וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר” is conjugated by the website Pealim.com as being “Part of speech: verb – PI’EL – to speak, to talk.” The site continues by stating: “ו־ + יְדַבֵּר = yedaber,” which is the “Future tense, 3rd person, masculine, singular,” which says, “and he / it will speak.” That future tense is obliterated by a translation that becomes “Then God spoke.” The future tense is key to understanding how “elohim” clearly states “gods.”

The scholastic religious view of Christianity says idiots wrote the books that become the library of books considered to be sacred, thus “Holy.” Only an idiot would scribble out extra letters, in order to change “el” (the singular number) into “elohim” (the plural number), and mean the singular number. Rather than think divine authors were idiots, it makes much more sense to me to consider the scholastic religious brains as those who are the idiots. The word “elohim” clearly states “gods,” so it is up to the scholar to understand why “gods” was written.

The mistake of this scholastic view, where they have invented some imaginary “E writer” of Old Testaments texts [“E” for “elohim,” but not “el”] is because Genesis 1 contains many references to “elohim” [none to Yahweh], as they who made this and they who made that, during the first six days of Creation. The scholars see all that as the writings of an idiot, as they translate every use of “elohim” as “God” [which makes them the idiots].

The first three words of Genesis 1 are “בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים” [read from right to left, as Hebrew], which presented left to right are transliterated as “bə·rê·šîṯ bā·rā ’ĕ·lō·hîm,” with a semi-colon mark following “elohim,” meaning those three words make a separate statement that begins the who chapter. Those three words state, “In the beginning created gods.” When separated from the following text, that becomes a statement that the first stage in Creation was the creation of lesser gods. That implies, by absence, that YHWH was the creator of lower-g gods; and, it says God let His gods do the work of His Creation, meaning they all worked according to God’s design.

That should not be hard to imagine. After all, God [YHWH] is omnipotent and able to make lesser gods. Simply by realizing that “elohim” fits the model of everything immortal, such as angels and Satan, as well as souls giving life to clay, one should easily be able to see “elohim” doing the word of Creation, just like one can imagine seven dwarfs working in a diamond mine.

In that same vein of intellect, one should see Exodus 20 beginning by having God [YHWH] speak what His “gods will speak.” The implication is God talking to gods, in a covenant that means the “gods” must come to terms with what Yahweh says; so, like a parent speaking to one’s children, to ensure they agree with what they are being told, the parent does not simply say the words to them. The parent says “now you say what I said.” Thus, as a covenant for the future, the “gods will speak” in agreement says the “elohim” must not be silent. They all must speak the words, “I do.” That is simple to understand; so, now one needs to understand how the Israelites are “elohim” all of a sudden.

The answer to that question is the realization that a soul is eternal and (like God) never dies. In understanding that, one must admit that life in a body of dirt (called “flesh”) comes from the breath of life given by God at birth. That breath is like a little bit of God being sent into clay, to make it animated with life. The work of life is then done by a itty bitty bit of God, thus a “god.” By grasping that fairly simple concept (something very difficult for atheists to do), one should be able to see that Exodus 20 begins by saying God will set out a covenant for all the souls of Israelites to agree with. What God spoke to Moses, those “elohim will speak” back to God, as their way of confirming they know what they are expected to do, in order to be claimed as the children of God, His chosen people.

Verse 2 then begins by making this line of thought official, as it says, “’ā·nō·ḵî Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā,” (again with a separation mark – a comma), so verse 2 begins by saying, “I am Yahweh your god.” The word “’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā” is a pronominal second person singular [either masculine or feminine, depending on the imaginary vowel choice] form of “elohim,” so it says “I YHWH possess your souls, making me your god of life source.”

It is from that realization that verse 2 then says, “who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” This becomes a two-part statement about what God has done to regain the souls [“elohim”] that had become lost. First, they had gone into the land of Ham, called “mizraim,” which is translated as meaning Egypt. Both Canaan and Mizraim were sons of Ham, who were cursed by Noah for getting him drunk on wine and leaving him naked and uncovered in his tent, where Ham saw his nakedness. Noah’s curse then fell upon the children of Ham. The children of Jacob had lived in Canaan as cursed [their father had stolen the birthright of his brother Esau] and then moved to Egypt, where they remained cursed, as the descendants of Israel. Therefore, the first statement by Yahweh says their souls had been redeemed from that curse.

The second part then speaks of those souls having been removed from “the house of slavery.” The “house” is again a reference to the “dwelling place” that was named Egypt. As descendants of Mizarim, the people of the Nile had become examples of the world of power, wealth and influence, such that system of Pharaohs and their religious acceptance of polytheism had enslaved the Israelites, forcing them to accept their system of religion or be shunned as second class citizens. Rather than being free to have the equal rights of normal Egyptians, the Israelites had become slaves to the overseers of the land. Still, for a soul within a body of flesh, it was easy to accept the demands to recognize multiple gods [“elohim”] and be given less punishment as an outcast. By following Moses out of Egypt, the Israelite souls had bee freed from slavery to polytheism and the worldly sacrifices demanded upon a soul.

The totality of verse 2 then is God expecting His breaths of life, breathed into those who were the descendants of Abraham, to agree that to be His souls again, redeemed of a curse [to regain the promise of Shem’s line, through Isaac, upon Jacob – the Supplanter] and removed from the world of evil influences. For that offer of salvation, those souls then had to agree to God’s terms thus coming. Egypt must be seen as the limitations placed on a soul, which become those of a body of flesh. Leaving Egypt was the Israelites’ engagement to God, leaving all past lovers behind; reaching the wilderness at Mount Sinai was when they came to the altar of marriage. Therefore, Moses leading them into the wilderness [remember this is the season of Lent] meant those souls were God’s only concern, not the flesh they brought with them.

According to the NRSV translation that is used by the Episcopal Church, verse 2 ends with a semi-colon, with verse 3 following as if a separate statement that is a continuation of verse 2’s idea of God giving freedom to the Israelites. While that is not entirely wrong, verse 2 ends with a period mark, making verse 3 become a free and separate statement that stands alone, although relative to everything stated prior in this chapter of Exodus. Other versions show this the way it was written: the NIV, the KJV, and the NASB for three.

Regardless of the presentation, all versions translate the Hebrew that follows verse 2 as saying, “You shall have no other gods before me.” I have written in-depth on how this is not a translation that states the truth of what is written in the Hebrew text. My interpretation entitled “The Ten Commandments” explains this more detail than I plan to offer here. Rather than repeat that depth, it is still important to again address what the meaning is; simply because the proper translation relates to last week’s [the second Sunday in Lent] Old Testament readings, when God told Abram, “walk before me and be blameless.” (Genesis 17:1c)

The word in that statement by God relates to a similar usage in Exodus 20:3, where “panim,” is written. In Genesis the word appears as “lə·p̄ā·nay” and here in Exodus as “‘al-pā·nā·ya.” Both uses have been translated as “before me,” such that Exodus 20:3 says “no other gods before me.” The word, according to Strong’s, means “face,” as a masculine noun. Only when one mutates it into an adverb does it bear the intent of stating location, implying “before” and also “behind.” As a noun, the word states a “face” – literally of man; a “face” – of relationship with; and, “face” – as when repeated as “face to face.” (Brown-Driver-Briggs)

By presenting a translation here that says “you shall have no other gods before me,” the implication of the adverb is not location, but order. It implies there are multiple “gods,” when the use of “elohim” in verse 1 was changed to state “God,” as a denial that there could ever be any “gods” other than the one “God” Yahweh. Still, “before me” gives the strong impression that Yahweh told Moses to pass it along, “You can have other gods, just none of them seen as more important than me.” That concept, when transferred to the Genesis reading of the exchange between God and Abram, says God approved Abram to “walk before God,” as if God was just tagging along, making Abram be a little-g “god before God.” That is not the way to translate the uses of “panim.”

When one grasps that God began this listing of Commandments by saying, “And spoke gods,” where one must see “gods” as the souls of the Israelites, the Commandments are setting the rules by which a soul will be freed from a curse upon their lineage [by Noah] and the captivity of their bodies of flesh, where urges lean them to sin while cast into the world of many “gods.” This says the Commandments are all about what a body of flesh must accomplish [righteousness] before its soul can stand “before” God and be judged. At that time, the sins of the flesh will become the “face” of one’s worship of other “gods” – those of the world and that of self-ego – which will mean rejection by Yahweh. Only when a soul appears before God wearing the “face of God” [“face of me”] will one be seen as without sin [“blameless”]. Therefore, verse 3 is a stand-alone statement that must be read as saying, “You shall wear the face of no other gods before me.” [Or, “You shall only wear my face before me.”]

This is imperative to hold firmly in one’s mind, as this become the first Commandment; and, that makes this instruction by God (through Moses) be the answer given by Jesus, when the Pharisees attempted to trick Jesus by asking his, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

When Jesus responded by saying, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment,” (Matthew 22:34-40) that says the only way one can give God absolute love – of heart, soul, and mind – is to be totally committed to wearing the “face of God” as one’s own, having submitted to God in marriage (soul to Holy Spirit), out of a mutual love that is all-encompassing. One cannot tie the first Commandment [which Jesus named in his response to the Pharisees] to absolute love. Simply by seeing the first Commandment as meaning all one’s love – cubed – one can see that means wearing the face of God wholly. If one’s love is shared among many “gods,” although the One God is given over 50% of one’s heart, soul, and mind, then one has broken the first Commandment.

Simply from understanding verse 3 as being the first Commandment that says a soul (an “el” of YHWH) must submit to Yahweh, totally, can one then read verse 4 as a separate Commandment that [as Jesus said] “hangs” from that sacrifice of self-face. As such, reading “You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” with a fresh set of eyes allows one to see this Commandment as how the faces of other gods cannot be worn. From the literal translation of the Hebrew written, verse 4 states (in stages):

“Not you shall make yourself an idol” , [with God’s face worn this cannot happen]

“or any likeness who in heaven rises” , [with God’s face worn one does not appear as Jesus]

“of that on the earth underneath” , [with God’s face worn one one does not appear as Satan]

“of that with the water underneath the earth” . [God’s face is worn as an emotional halo]

The second Commandment is not a demand not to make graven images of some household god, which will be placed on the mantle over the fireplace or the dashboard of one’s car. It is a series of what one’s face must not become, as the flesh covering one’s soul. One cannot think of oneself as some idol of worship [self-worship especially, but not a reflection of someone else, such as a political leader seen as one’s “god”]. One certainly cannot think of oneself as having attained deification, in pretense that one is like a god from heaven, who is expected to make others bow down before oneself. All of this becomes the pretense of being a little-g god of the earth, made of flesh and bones, all of which are mortal and bound to die. Finally, the physical water under the earth become metaphor for the emotions one has within one’s flesh, which becomes the motivation for one’s idolization of self or others.

When one sees how water is the element of Creation that reflects the emotions all humans are made to contain, the water becomes the love of which Jesus spoke. If one’s love is for self or other human beings, including the things offered up in a world of sin as the rewards offered by little-g “gods” – wealth, power, influence – then one’s emotions are not totally for Yahweh.

This then brings us to verses 5 and 6, which are omitted from the Proper 22-A reading, making them important to understand during the season of Lent. According to the NRSV above, they state:

“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

It should be rather easy to see how these two verses are erased from the reading during Pentecost, because that reflects a time when the laws are written on the hearts of an Apostle [one Ordained into ministry], meaning that total love of God, in heart, soul and mind, makes these warnings unnecessary. However, when God was speaking through Moses to the souls of the Israelites, they were just beginning to learn what it would take to reach that ultimate goal of ministry, when each would become a true priest of Yahweh.

Again returning to what Jesus told the Pharisees, verse 6 stating “those who love me and keep my commandments” is a statement that prophesies the future time when total love of God will bring about God’s presence in their hearts, where the Law will be written as God in their hearts, with Jesus being reborn as the Christ Mind that will lead their minds, and the Holy Spirit being the divine presence of God that will show love in one’s soul. By God saying, those who will show “steadfast love” will have gained eternal life, that means God’s love will be repaid a thousand time over [infinity].

Conversely, when verse 5 says, “you shall not bow down to them or worship them,” the pronoun “them” [“לָהֶ֖ם֮”] means oneself and any other human or deity [all dead]. To “bow down” means to lower one’s “face” to the ground, so one refuses to wear the “face of God.” Bowing down to them means wearing those other faces as one’s polytheism, so one worships many gods, more often than or in the exclusion of wearing Yahweh’s face. Therefore, when verse 5 says, “those who reject me,” the Hebrew written [“lə·śō·nə·’āy,” from “sane”] says “those who hate me,” meaning the only excuse for refusing to wear only God’s face after marriage to Him says love is not present, but hate. By grasping how “hate” is a flow of emotions [water] that is the opposite of “love,” there can only be two ways a soul can reflect the powers of the flesh over it: “hate” of God, thus love of self; or, “love” of God, meaning hate of self [and the sins self brings].

This meaning that one must reject self, rather than God, then flows into the next Commandment, which says [from the literal Hebrew translation into English], “not you shall take the name Yahweh your god with emptiness.” Here, the words “Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā” are repeated, as they were presented in verse 2. When the Commandment says not to take the name Yahweh, the use of “your god” seen as meaning “your soul,” says one cannot claim to be married to Yahweh and then produce zero evidence of having taken that name as “your god” in marriage. This does not means uttering the “name God” wrongly, in a way that Muslims will want to kill anyone who draws a picture of Mohammed or Allah, or how the Jews do not even spell the whole word, using “G_d.” The name of Yahweh is a statement of marriage, where a soul is no longer married to its body of flesh, led by lusts and carnal desires, having instead married a soul to the Holy Spirit of Yahweh, taking His holy name as their own, thereby wearing His face as theirs.

When one reads “in the name of Jesus Christ,” this is not speaking of Jesus as the Christ, or as if his last name is Christ. It means one has married God, so one’s soul is merged with His Holy Spirit, taking on the name of God, which is the Christ – His Anointment of one. That marriage then gives rise to the Son of God within one’s flesh, so one becomes [regardless of human gender] Jesus reborn. All of this means wearing the face of God, in His name.

The ultimatum that God “will not acquit anyone who misuses his name,” where the word translated as “acquit” is better stated as “will hold guiltless,” becomes a repeat of what God told Abram. When he said “walk wearing my face and be blameless,” He was saying the soul of Abram has proved to walk in the name of God and was thus without sin. However, to say one is a Christian, when one does not wear the face of God – one has not been reborn as Jesus, as the Christ resurrected anew – then one is taking that name vainly. That is not what God wants; and, God will not excuse those who sin while claiming to wear God’s face.

Verses 8 and 9 then tells the “elohim” to remember the “Sabbath day,” which is in fact the day we still live in today, just as it was the “Sabbath day” when Moses took the Israelites into the wilderness. The “Sabbath day” is not one twenty-four hour period [either Saturday or Sunday], but the time when God made religion come to earth in the form of His Son, the one we call Adam. After six “days” of Creation – over billions of years – Yahweh made a man to bear a soul that was married to Him. Thus, Genesis 2 says, “God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.” There, the two references to “God” actually are written as “elohim.”

When Genesis 2 is translated so it states the truth, it becomes a statement saying, “The “elohim” blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it the “elohim” rested from all the work that they had done in creation.” That becomes a reflection of Exodus 20 being God speaking to His “elohim,” about what they needed to say in agreement. Thus, the souls of the Israelites were those descended from the “elohim” God created to do the work of Creation. Those souls would have to become married to Yahweh so they would fully comprehend that the “Sabbath day” begins when one’s soul says, “I do” and the “Sabbath day” does not ever end after that.

As such, verse 9 states, “six days you shall labor and do all your work.” That becomes a reflection of that work done, as the descendants of Jacob, enslaved in a foreign land, resisting the influences of evil. The work of those souls had brought them to the altar of marriage to God, as bridesmaids who had kept their lamps full of oil, even in the darkest hours when their lights of faith in God still shined brightly. It was that commitment of love that brought them to the wilderness, to the wedding vows Moses was passing onto them, from God, their bridegroom.

The omitted verses 10 and 11 [omitted from the Proper 22-A reading] are then presented by the NRSV as stating: “But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.”

While this can be seen in support of what I have stated, it is best to look at this according to the BibleHub Interlinear’s literal English translation, complete with the breaks that are based on the placement of punctuation marks. That then shows the following:

10

“but day seventh Sabbath Yahweh your “elohim” —

“not you shall make any occupation” ,

“you” ,

“nor your son” ,

“nor your daughter” ,

“nor your servants” ,

“nor your handmaids” ,

“nor your livestock” ,

“nor any traveler who within your gate” —

11

“for six days did Yahweh the heavens and the earth” ,

“the sea” ,

“and all which they and rested the day seventh” .

“so blessed Yahweh the day Sabbath” ,

“and set it apart sacred” .

Verse 10 has to be read as stating the exception of the Sabbath, as the seventh day.” The first six days were done by the “elohim,” as directed by God. Each of the “gods” had its own specific role to play – its assigned “work” to do or an “occupation.” In that regard, the “elohim” were given the freedom to create for God. However, after the Creation was finished, the powers of the “gods” ceased. This means the Sabbath [which takes place in Genesis 2] was when the “elohim” rested and Yahweh took over. Therefore, none of the “elohim” would be allowed to be recognized as special: not any of the forms listed in verse 10.

This means that verse 11 is stating within the confines of the material realm the only “things” that can be found anything of value are souls within flesh, but only those “blessed by Yahweh.” Being so “blessed” means an “el” has been set apart from the material world – the earth [flesh] and the water [blood] has transformed, making one “sacred” – married to Yahweh via the “Holy” Spirit. Therefore, the marriage between Yahweh and the souls of the Israelites would set them apart, having been blessed through holy matrimony.

With the omitted verses now understood, as necessary additions to the Covenant between God and the Israelites, which state their marriage vows being established, the remaining six verses in this reading selection states what becoming “blessed and set apart as holy” will bring in their lives. That becomes a group of individuals, all equally placed together, thus a list of commitments as wives in common – all married to Yahweh – stating how they would relate with one another, all being wives of God living separately from the civil world, where sin proliferates.

Being filled with God’s Holy Spirit would mean their souls would cause their flesh:

· To honor their father and mother, as souls descended from Abraham with the promise that walking with the face of God will keep them sin free and blameless upon the death of the flesh.

· Not to murder the flesh of another in their midst, whose soul had also been blessed and set apart as holy.

· Not to commit adultery, which would be a reflection in the flesh of one’s soul seeking to cheat on God, causing another soul in the flesh to do the same.

· Not to steal, which would be a lust for material things, when the reward of a blessed soul is greater than anything ever made in the material world.

· Not bear false witness against one’s neighbor, where the element of lying can never arise when one’s face is that of God, and one’s neighbor is a reflection of oneself, as all the souls within the Israelite family would have been married to Yahweh, all becoming Yahweh elohim.

· Not covet anything or anybody related to one’s neighbors, again because everything they possess is the same as one possesses – the love of Yahweh and the blessing of righteousness.

These Commandments are then not external demands [at that time nothing was written on parchment – only stone tablets etched by the finger of God], as much as they were shared vows of marriage, all willingly made out of love. When the elohim had been merged with God’s Holy Spirit, making them all become Holy Spirits within flesh, the Covenant would be written upon their hearts and everything stated as “you shall not” will not be by willful force, but by loving desire, as a soul consecrated.

As a Lenten reading, one should see the self-sacrifice of commitment, made between a soul and God. This is a test in the wilderness that becomes a life without sin, led by the sanctity of God presence within, which is for much more than forty days. It shows the period of Lent as being synonymous with the institution of marriage, where holy matrimony between two partners is sworn to be “until death do us part.” All who are married as human beings joined together know the tests of commitment are known beforehand to include the good with the bad: better or worse; richer or poorer; and, sickness and health. Therefore, Lent must be seen as the first day of forever, and not a honeymoon before divorce.

1 Corinthians, Language, Teaching

1 Corinthians 1:18-25 – The wisdom of raising one’s stake

Leave a comment

The message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” [Isaiah 29:14]

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

——————–

This is the Epistle reading selection for the third Sunday in Lent, Year B, according to the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. It accompanies the Old Testament reading from Exodus 20, which lists the Ten Commandments. Psalm 19 is sung along with this, saying: “Although they have no words or language, and their voices are not heard, Their sound has gone out into all lands, and their message to the ends of the world.” Finally, the Gospel reading from John, which tells of Jesus overturning the vendor tables and saying he would rebuild the temple in three days also fits the thread of Paul’s words.

In verse 18 that begins this reading, the word “cross” is found as the translation for “staurou.” While a “cross” is read by modern brains that know the whole story of Jesus of Nazareth, so the accepted global symbolism of a “cross” is it states how Jesus of Nazareth died for the sins of everyone in the whole wide world, that limits severely the truth. That meaning of a “cross” as an instrument of death is a viable translation of “staurou,” but the word was most commonly used in spoken and written language two thousand years ago [in an agrarian society] as meaning “an upright stake,” one most typically found (in the hundreds) in vineyards, as the instruments upon which grapevines grew.

Here, in order to grasp the full intent of Paul writing verse 18 as he did, placing focus on “the cross,” it is good to look closely at how the structure of what he wrote is presented, based on marks of punctuation. Whereas the NRSV presents verse 18 in two segments, with one comma in the middle, the BibleHub Interlinear presentation shows this verse broken into five segments, including a semi-colon. They are as such (literally translated into English):

“This word for those of the cross” ,

“to those truly dying foolishness is” ;

“those now being rescued” ,

“to us” ,

“strength of God it is” .

Because this verse begins with a capitalized first word (“Ho”), a meaning more substantive than “the” must be found. An acceptable substitution in translation, according to NASB Translation list of the uses of “ho” in the New Testament allows “This” to be a viable alternate translation, found translated as that thirty-one times. The capitalization as “This” makes verse 18 be referencing back to what was just written by Paul. There, Paul had asked the Corinthian Christians if they had been crucified or baptized in the name of Paul. [The obvious answer is “No.”] In verse 17 he wrote [according to the NRSV translation]:

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”

As can be seen, “This” becomes an important clarification of his words stating “the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” There, Paul wrote the Greek word “stauros,” which has equally been translated as “cross.”

When verse 18 is broken down into segments that makes each need to be grasped independently from the others, the first segment sets up the whole verse and all segments that follow, such that Paul is announcing he was then writing about the “word” [from “logos”] that is “stauros,” relative to it being heard as an instrument of dead – the Roman crucifix. More than “the message of the cross,” this verse addresses the “word” translated as “cross.”

The second segment then addresses that issue of death, where to project that all Christians-to-be must die on a Roman crucifix is seen by them as “foolishness,” an “absurdity,” or “folly” [the meanings for “mōria“]. By translating the Greek word “stauros” as meaning an instrument of death makes no sense to those hearing the word as that. Because Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on a Roman “cross,” hearing that one must pick up his [or her] own “cross” and carry that [the lesson of the second Sunday of Lent] sounds like being asked to go down to some Roman office and ask to be killed by crucifixion. Paul said those who were “truly dying” could not fathom such a message of suicide.

The deeper meaning of Paul writing “to those truly dying” [“tois men apollymenois“] is it says all who are not saved from their sins are mortals and bound to die at some point. Without finding the salvation of Jesus Christ means they are “truly dying” of souls in bodies of sinful flesh. There is no crucifix that can possibly save their souls from a judgement by God that will send them back into new bodies of flesh, which also being mortal will be bound to die … again and again.

From seeing that deeper meaning about “truly dying” [“men apollymenois”], the “word” or “message” [“logos”] of the “cross” [“stauros”] is that of being “an upright stake.” While a Roman crucifix is likewise placed upright in the ground, it is first laid down on the ground, so a living body can be nailed to it. As an upright stake in a vineyard, the grapevines have support that allows full clusters of juicy grapes to hand from the cross members of the stake, without touching the ground and becoming ruined. This means becoming the good fruit of the vine [such as Paul] are those who offer salvation, by becoming another upright stake that supports the good fruit of the holy vine of God and Christ. This meaning can also be found reflected in the Genesis reading of the past Sunday, when God told Abram “walk with my face [the face of God] and be blameless], such that Abram lived his entire life as a “cross” that was upright.

This means the ability to be saved, in order to save others as an upright stake, is all from “the strength of God” awarded to an upright stake. God’s power is not displayed in instruments of death. God’s power is displayed in human beings, whose souls have married Him [merged with His Holy Spirit], giving rise to His Son within [in the name of Jesus Christ]. The power of God is to produce good fruit in the name of His Son, through others of true faith, who have become upright stakes, just as was Jesus of Nazareth.

In support of this intended message [“logos”], Paul then quoted Isaiah 29:14, where Isaiah said [paraphrasing] that God will destroy the wisdom of the wise and frustrate the intelligence of the intellectuals. This then states the intent of Paul writing about “foolishness, absurdity, or folly” from reading about a “stauros” and thinking of an instrument of destruction, the quote from Isaiah says reading divine Scripture can be a most tricky thing for scholars and people who are more connected to a university degree than God Almighty. The use of Isaiah’s verse says “stauros” can only be seen as an upright stake in God’s vineyard by those allowing their brains to be led by the Mind of Christ.

Paul then asked a series of rhetorical questions, the first three beginning with the word “pau.” The first question uses a capitalized “Pau,” which makes it important to realize the word is not meant simply to ask “where,” but to importantly ask, “In what place” one is. The importance places focus of where one’s thought process come from: scholarly intellect or divine insight.

The four questions are:

“In what place is learned” ? [the “wise”]

“in what place is a writer of Jewish law” ? [“the scribe”]

“in what place are philosophical arguments those of this age” ? [“the debater”]

“has God not made the fools of the world’s intelligence” ? [“the wisdom of the world”]

Why else would Paul turn to ask such questions, after introducing a verse that deals with “the message of the cross”? These question become a strong statement that seeing “stauros” as meaning the crucifix upon which Jesus of Nazareth faced death is shear intellect, overthinking and not being led by God’s insight to see the truth of its deeper meaning. A “staurou” is an “upright stake,” where that symbolizes “righteousness,” which is only possible through the “strength of God.”

In verse 21, where the NRSV translates Paul to state: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe,” the “wisdom of God” [“sophia tou Theou”] must be seen as the insight given to all whose books are canonized and presented as divine texts. The Holy Bible is a collection of texts that represent the wisdom of God, not the intellect of men.

When Paul wrote of those in “the world [who]… did not know him” [“ouk egnō ho kosmos”], the use of “egnō” says: “properly, to know, especially through personal experience (first-hand acquaintance).” (HELPS Word-studies) The absence of a personal relationship with God [marriage of one’s soul to His Holy Spirit] means intellect has no value beyond the material realm.

This then says that “those who believe” [“tous pisteuontas”] is not simple belief, but a deeper statement of true faith. Being relative to faith, where faith is based on personal experience, not hearsay, says the truth must come from being married to God and as one with Him becoming one with His wisdom. Instead of having eyes that cannot see, one is shown the truth that others are blind to, through their brains getting in the way. Brains believe, souls know, as faith.

It should not be overlooked how Paul writing “God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached.” This is not a statement that God found pleasure in the preaching of the “cross” as an instrument of death. In reality, those words are divided into two segments of words, where “was pleased this of God” is relative to those who expressed belief in One God, such as did the Jews and some Greeks. They were the ones pleased, based on their intellect that preached belief in God was all they needed. Thus, the Jews were blessed simply by being Jews and the Greeks were blessed by claiming to be believers in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

Their preaching the “cross” made the death of Jesus only be for their benefit, which was foolishness. This is a message still preached today, which the intellectuals who lead the churches of Christianity refuse to see a call for sacrifice through righteousness, making them become fools in the eye of God.

Paul then wrote (according to the NRSV): “For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” This says both the Jews and Greek philosophers demand evidence to what is written, as proof to believe that as holy. The Jews can only see the sign of “stauros” as a Roman crucifix, which angers Jews to revolt against foreign domination. The Greek philosophy was to see how death on a Roman cross means anything other than death, since there is limited proof of one dead returning to life. The evidence of Jesus would be enhanced by his still walking around, showing people his scars of death and telling his story as a firsthand witness. The metaphor of signs and the intelligence of logic is what keeps belief from becoming true faith. Still, for Gentiles, all talk of dying on a cross and being resurrected is difficult to believe, especially when those talking about it are obviously holding doubts of their own.

Where verse 23 states, “we proclaim Christ crucified” [“hēmeis de kēryssomen Christon estaurōmenon”], it is that message heard that becomes a “stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Gentiles.” That says the message preached in that way is wrong, simply because we recently read how Jesus told Peter he was a stumbling block and needed to get behind him, calling Peter “Satan.” God does not want stumbling blocks be part of His message through His Saints. Therefore, one who is frightened by a “cross,” because it symbolizes torture to death, is being misled.

Paul then wrote “to those who are the called,” where the Greek words written express “those” who have been led to stumble are to be helped upright, by “those called” by God, as Christ reborn in their flesh. Paul is one who was “called” [“klētois”], where the implication says “summoned by God to an office or to salvation.” (Strong’s usage)

It is then from those who God has called, as the ones who possess divine wisdom, that “stauros’ can be explained to be an “upright stake” that has the strength of God within, enabled to bear the weight of the truth of Scripture. That truth becomes the food that feeds those seeking knowledge, so they can then find “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

That understanding then led Paul to conclude here that “God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” All of this says human intellect will never be able to know the whole truth, but that half-truths discovered through human brains are easily misused and ultimately turned against them. To worship knowledge possessed by human brains is to turn one’s back to God, where one then bows down before scholastic knowledge and worships the Big Brain as all-powerful. The grand total of that power of human knowledge is nothing compared to the insight given to the faithful by God. Therefore, if one can see just how perverted human knowledge has become by preaching “stauros” means a cross of death, then one has become a fallen stake in God’s vineyard that has been raised and given the strength of God to bear the weight of His Christ Mind.

As a reading selected for the season of Lent, the element of “the cross” must be seen in the light of self-sacrifice. This was the lesson of the second Sunday in Lent, where Jesus was explained to have instructed all his followers to raise up their stake to an upright position in God’s vineyard and then become him reborn [“follow me”]. While the crucifix upon which Jesus’ dead body hung was an instrument designed to kill, rather than support vines with clusters of grapes, that cross must be seen as an upright stake upon which the good fruit of the vine hung. Because Jesus did not remain dead, rising after three days and returning in the flesh to his disciples, to complete their training, his cross does not stand for death, but rather a transition to a higher state of being.

Jesus did not die on a crucifix because his soul had married God’s Holy Spirit, making him in possession of eternal life, beyond the physical state of his flesh. Death is only a state of the physical and a soul can only experience death through an incarnation in the flesh, without the presence of God in one’s heart. To die in the flesh, releasing a soul that still is responsible for its sins means to return to the world (via reincarnation), not having gained the freedom of death that eternal salvation offers a soul. Thus, Lent becomes a time when one must raise up his or her state and prove that one has already died of self-ego and married God into one’s heart. The only way to survive this test of commitment is to be a soul merged with God’s Holy Spirit.

The message about the cross, told here in Paul’s first letter to the Christians of Corinth, says the only reason one will not marry God and will not sacrifice self-ego, thereby failing a Lenten test miserably, is due to thinking one is too smart to need to totally sacrifice oneself to the Lord. Thus, when Paul wrote “For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified,” the stumbling block found is thinking Jesus died, so I don’t ever have to suffer and be tested. That is not the case; and, Lent is a season [whether or not anyone realizes it] when one knows why self-sacrifice is all important, as a total commitment to God. Marriage to God is the only way to raise one’s stake to an upright position and gain the strength necessary to go the rest of one’s life [well beyond forty days] as God’s wife.

John, Language, Teaching

John 2:13-22 – Sacrificing one’s zeal for material things

Leave a comment

The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The Jews then said to him, “What sign can you show us for doing this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking of the temple of his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

——————–

This is the Gospel reading selection for the third Sunday in Lent, Year B, according to the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. This reading by a priest [if the Church allows its priests to speak before human beings] will follow a reading from Exodus 20, stating the Ten Commandments; also, a singing of Psalm 19, where is said, “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold.” Immediately before this Gospel reading is read from Pauls’ first letter to the Christians of Corinth, where he spoke of the wisdom of God being foolishness to the wise.

This reading from John’s Gospel is similar to that found stated by Matthew, in his Gospel (Matthew 21:12-13). It is important to realize the two similar events are not the same one event. This reading from John takes place after he told of Jesus moving to Capernaum from Nazareth [following the wedding in Cana]. This is then Jesus’ first trip to Jerusalem as a rabbi in ministry. The account told by Matthew takes place after Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, in his final visit for the Passover. This says two things: first, Jesus acted the same during each visit to Jerusalem, because Jerusalem acted the same each year; and second, it says the disciples of Jesus [then only a few] each went to Jerusalem separate from Jesus, each with their own families and not as followers of Jesus. The Passover is a time to recognize oneself being a follower of Yahweh and nothing less.

In verse 13, where it is translated “Jesus went up to Jerusalem,” it is easy to see these words as directional, such as Jesus traveled north to Jerusalem. That is not the meaning intended by John writing the word “anebē,” where the infinitive verb “anabainó” means “I go up, mount, ascend; of things: I rise, spring up, come up.” (Strong’s) In the logistical sense, to say Jesus “went up” means he went to the Temple Mount, which means he walked up steps to where the temple was built on Mount Moriah. Still, the logistics is not the deeper meaning of that word being used.

In John’s second chapter, at the wedding in Cana, Jesus had told his mother, “My hour has not yet come.” When Jesus traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover, he had done that many times before, as one of many Jews in pilgrimage. However, at this time Jesus rose from a pilgrim to a rabbi of Yahweh, as the Son of man. Therefore, with that understanding grasped, everything that follows in this reading is based on Jesus having become spiritually elevated to the voice of God, who the Jews believed lived in the Temple in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.

In verse 14 are found four uses of the marker word “kai,” which is written not as a simple conjunction [“and”] but as a word that denotes importance to follow that marker, which needs to be grasped. When verse 14 is broken down into its parts or segments of words, separated by the word “kai” and commas, the verse is found to have greater impact when read slowly, as:

“kai he found in the temple those selling oxen” ,

“kai sheep” ,

“kai doves” ,

“kai the money changers sitting” .

The uses of “kai” have to be seen as a word that says, “slow down and think about these things.” When one does that, one can begin to get the scene physically, especially if one has gone to a petting zoo, a zoo for exotic animals, or even better – a farm or ranch, where one knows that livestock are mindless creatures. One certainly has to be careful where one steps and the smell of manure is not conducive for prayer and worship. In fact, a priest once told us parishioners that the use of incense in the early church was due to the meetings of Christians being held in barns [they had no cathedrals then] and the incense was used to mask the odor in the barn or stable. By reading the presentations of “kai” as John [and all other divine authors of Scripture] saying, “I write not to stutter, but to make important things be known,” one can see Jesus doing some housecleaning when faced with holy ground being like some livestock exchange.

Verse 15 also contains four uses of “kai” and therefore acts the same way, such that one needs to slow down and see the importance of stages of actions done by Jesus. Here, those segments of words appear as this:

“kai having constructed a whip of ropes” ,

“all he drove out from the temple” ,

“this both sheep” ,

“kai those oxen” ;

“kai from those money changers he poured out the coins” ,

“kai whose tables he overthrew” .

In this verse beginning with Jesus making a whip out of ropes, one must be reading slowly enough to be there, standing by Jesus, watching him go from sheep to sheep and from ox to ox, releasing each from a rope restraint that kept them each tied in place. Then, with a few of those ropes held onto, Jesus used then as a whip to motivate the untied beasts to run away from the Temple courtyard, fleeing into the outer reaching of the mount. With the animals running away, the merchants saw their possessions leaving them, so they would have naturally gotten up from their seats and run after their animals. While they were busy chasing animals, they left unattended their baskets of coins, which Jesus lifted up like cups and slowly allowed the coins to flow out like water, probably on top of piles of dung, as if washing the place clean with money. Then, with those acts complete and the vendors still trying to catch their livestock, Jesus overturned all the tables, as a statement that said, “Shop closed.”

It is important to see the uses of “kai” as necessary to show the time of a real event having taken place. To read verse 15 all in one breath is to give the impression that Jesus waved a wand and all that is stated happened all at once. That impression comes from reading “and” as just a word that says “and all this happened then.”

Verse 16 is then focus placed on those vendors who sold doves, which would have been kept in cages and not set free by Jesus. Here, it should be noted that when the mother of Jesus went to the temple to be purified after having given birth to Jesus, Joseph purchased two doves, “to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord.” (Luke 2:24a) That says it was standard practice for one to bring his own hooved beast for sacrifice [not purchase one there], but as a substitute for the poor or travelers birds could be offered. Still, the sales of those birds would have been outside the temple proper, which was not the case when Jesus came this day. One can imagine how someone giving vendors selling sheep and oxen access to the temple proper, those selling birds would have followed the crowd, not to be left out. Thus, verse 16 tells how Jesus also demanded the dove sellers to go back to where their rightful place was and “Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.” [The use of exclamation points are those of the NRSV and presumably for making it match the mood of Jesus being upset.]

It is in verse 17 that confusion comes from the translation by the NRSV, saying “His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”’ First of all, this translation misrepresents the word “mathētai” [meaning “learners, disciples, pupils”] as the disciples that would later specifically number twelve lead disciples, who attended to the needs of Jesus as he taught them how to become rabbis. Because no other recollection of this first Passover event is written in either Mark of Matthew, as occurring at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, Jesus had none of the six disciples named up to that point in time with him [Peter, Andrew, James and John of Zebedee, Philip, and Nathaniel-Bartholomew]. Second, it implies that someone other than Jesus recalled a Scripture verse AND that verse falsely gives the impression it spoke of Jesus having zeal. All of this is the wrong impression to take, as it confuses the reading.

The Greek written by John states: “Emnēsthēsan hoi mathētai autou hoti gegrammenon estin : Ho zēlos tou oikou sou kataphagetai me .” Before addressing the literal translation, it is important to see this verse contains two capitalized words: Emnēsthēsan and Ho. Each of those two words must be seen as capitalized for the purpose of showing importance in their meaning, beyond a normal way of understanding a lower-case word. Capitalization is like the use of “kai,” but rather than introducing concepts that are important, capitalization elevates one word to a divine level of meaning; and, that is important to note.

With that stated, the literal translation of the Greek then states, “Called to mind this learners of him what has come to pass : That zeal of this house of you will devour me .”

As to the capitalized word “Emnēsthēsan,” it is the aorist passive indicative, 3rd person plural form of the verb “mimnéskó,” which means “I remember, call to mind, recall, mention.” If this word were written in the lower-case, it could be possible to see some minion disciple watch Jesus clear merchants from the temple and then blurt out a quote from Scripture; but because the word is capitalized, it is spoken by Jesus, as the word of God having “Called to mind” something relative to God Almighty. Therefore, God speaking through Jesus was not some private soliloquy, but God preaching to Jewish ears on the heads of those who were captivated by Jesus, some of whom might well have become “pupils” of Jesus, as his new “disciples.”

The Greek word “gegrammenon” is translated simply as “written,” meaning God spoke through Jesus “Reminding” those who watched everything taking place of words they all knew by memorization. Still, the words spoken were said as a prophecy “written” would be “Remembered,” as that which “has come to pass.” As a quote from Scripture, that acted as a prophecy unfolding before their eyes with what Jesus had been witnessed doing. Thus, the meaning of the root word “graphó” says God spoke through Jesus as a way of pointing out “it stands as written what is now happening.”

The quote comes from Psalm 69:9a, where the whole of verses 8 and 9 say “I am a foreigner to my own family, a stranger to my own mother’s children; for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.” Just as David was filled with the Holy Spirit when he wrote those lyrics, so too was Jesus when he spoke of God “Reminding” those who listened that making the temple a marketplace is destroying their relationship with God. God told David that being zealous was devouring the relationship the Israelites had with their God, meaning being zealous was selfish. The “zeal” was not to be found of Jesus, from clearing out the temple of evildoers, but it was the “zeal” of the evildoers who took up a zealous position as proprietors of the temple in the first place. God was speaking to those who listened, seeking to learn (disciples-to-be) saying, “You insult me by not having done this clearing before my Son came for me.”

When that quote is seen as coming from the lips of Jesus, the rest of the words spoken become understandable, because verse 17 begins with the capitalized word “Apekrithēsan,” which means “Answered, Replied,” or “Took up the conversation.” Rather than the nebulosity of some Jews hearing some disciple quote a half-verse from a Psalm of David, so the NRSV translated this simply as “The Jews then said to him,” one must see the “Jews” [the capitalized word “Ioudaioi”] as the temple leaders – the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, et al – as hearing Jesus quote David, hearing him calling them an insult to God. That becomes why they responded to what he quoted, taking up the conversation that follows.

Verse 18 then has the leaders of the temple ask Jesus (according to the NRSV translation], “What sign can you show us for doing this?”

The Greek actually states this as a two-part question, with a comma in the middle. The “Reply” made to God speaking through Jesus was to ask, importantly, “What sign can you teach us?” where the capitalization of “Ti” becomes the “Jews” responding to God as if their being leaders of the temple made them all-knowing of Scripture, thus able to detect an insult made to them through the use of Scripture. The first half of their question was intended to belittle Jesus, just as God (through Jesus) had belittled them.

More than a sign expected from God, the temple leaders were asking Jesus for some signed document that someone had given to him, allowing him to let animals free, dump coins in dung, overturn tables and tell dove salesmen to go back to where they used to set up shop, outside the temple. Then, the second part of the question asked, “how can you do these things [without some official authority]?”

This two-part question is then “Answered” by Jesus, where the capitalized word in Greek is written: “Apekrithē.” Here, the importance of capitalization says God continued to speak through His Son. At this point in time, Jesus had just begun his official ministry as a rabbi of Yahweh, so Jesus was not thinking how to respond to a question that asked him to produce some form of evidence that he had authority to do what he was doing, at such a money-making time as Passover. To fully understand how Jesus did in fact continue the conversation, one has to look closely at what John wrote.

Again, a capitalized word begins what is said to the Jews, through Jesus. That word is “Lysate,” which translates as the second-person plural aorist active imperative of the verb “luó.” The second person says Jesus was directly responding to the Jews, as “you” in a direct, personal distinction. This second person usage says the “Jews” [plural] were indeed the ones responsible for what happened in and around the temple proper. The root verb means, “loose, untie, release, set free, set aside, allow,” but the imperative mood makes the capitalization be a command from God that knows the rulers of the Jews had “broken, destroyed, and annulled” all connections between that building they worshiped and the God they thought still lived there. Thus, the “sign” Jesus had for them was their own lackadaisical attitude towards being true priests to Yahweh. The sign was their acts that would “Destroy” the temple was everything they did, holding profits [from vendors paying for space to sell their products in the temple] as a value above God. The destruction would come from being self-serving, not God fearing.

Just as the Jews had asked Jesus a two part question, the answer given to them also comes in two parts. The first was the “sign,” which was a great Temple in Jerusalem that would again come tumbling down, due to mismanagement of the Covenant that married God to their souls. The Jews were little more than cheating floozies at that point in time, bound to die as all mortals do, with no chance of redemption. Therefore, they had no way to prevent an foreseeable end. The first part of Jesus’ answer was a prophecy of 70 A.D.

The second half of the answer given by Jesus begins with the word “kai,” and importantly states: “in three days I will raise up same.” While this gave the Jews the impression that Jesus said he would rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem in three days, his response was to “how Jesus could act as he was acting,” as if he had some document allowing him to cast out people and animals. Here, his answer speaks more than figuratively [as John would explain in verse 21], but esoterically as well.

The Greek words written by John, attesting to what God said through the mouth of Jesus, are “kai en trisin hēmerais egerō auton.” Before stating the literal translation possibilities comes from those five words [following “kai”], it is worthwhile explaining how divine texts are not normal sentences, as is prose that follows the rules of syntax presented in human language.

While the words written do form syntactical segments of words that are understandable in known languages, divine language does not require adjustments from one human language to another, such that subject-verb placements make more sense one way in this language, but reversed in another language. Divinely inspired words stay in the order they are written, meaning each word expresses fully one thought from the Godhead, which needs to be received by the brain possessing the Christ Mind.

By accepting that analysis of divine language, it is easy to see how human languages need to process “trisin hēmerais” as an all-important statement about time, as “three days,” and nothing else works. The word “en” is heard as nothing more than a filler preposition. The word “auton” became a common pronoun referring to the noun “temple.” That is how the Jews heard those words spoken, and they were thinking with highly educated brains, as the rulers of the Jews. They heard with human ears, unable to grasp divine language, in the same way the NRSV [and all other version translating divine text into English] makes similar mistakes.

The esoteric way to read the second part of Jesus’ answer, relative to “how comes it that” [meaning of “hoti” according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon], the answer needs to be read as five separate statements, as follows:

· “among” [viable translation for “en”] – means how is Jesus being more than alone.

· “three” [translation of “trisin”] – means how Jesus is a reflection of the Trinity.

· “the light of days” [viable interpretation of “hēmerais”] – means how Jesus is the light that never goes out.

· “I will awaken” [viable translation of “egerō”] – means how Jesus will revive all those born of mortal death that have been kept in figurative sleep by the rulers of Jerusalem.

· “the same” [viable translation of “auton”] – means how Jesus will become the temple where seeking Jews will come to pray and worship God.

This esoteric view of Jesus speaking the divine language sent to him by the Father says [as John would refer to in verse 21] says his answer to the Jews about how he could cast out vendors and have his way on their turf says he will replace the temple the Jews have destroyed by allowing animals to defecate on grounds set aside as holy by becoming himself holy ground. The use of “three days,” where that becomes a prophecy of the three days Jesus’ body would be dead from crucifixion, brought about by the rulers of the Temple, the number “three” still has to be seen as Jesus being joined with the Father, via the Holy Spirit, even when his body [the Son] appeared lifeless and was indeed dead. The use of “days” still says that the soul of Jesus, as the Trinity, never experienced death, having the “days” of eternal life always with him.

Verse 20 then has the Jews retort to Jesus, making their misunderstanding what Jesus said become an example of how they did not truly know the meaning of what David said in Psalm 69. By rhetorically asking (NRSV), “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” the Jews stated where their hearts truly were. That makes knowing the history of the Second Temple important.

The Second Temple was a project allowed by Cyrus the Great, after defeating the Babylonians in 586 B.C. Reconstruction was begun when the Persians took control of Jerusalem, with the Jews returning there from exile in Babylon in 538 B.C. The Second Temple was completed under Darius in 515 B.C., meaning the building of the Second Temple lasted seventy-one years. By the time Herod the Great became a Roman dictator over Judea, the Second Temple had stood for nearly five hundred years, meaning Herod began a renewal of its conditions having come from age. Because it was also a beautification project, it took on the name Herod’s Temple.

This history, which undoubtedly took many freed Jews doing the labor of building a temple says no one in his right mind would say he would take a destroyed building of very large stones and timbers and rebuild that structure alone, much less do that physical work in three days. For the Jewish leaders to think only in terms of the beautification rework and how much more money the new works had brought into their coffers over forty-six years, to even think Jesus had just told them that says they were counting up how much money they would have lost, simply from losing that cash cow for three days. They did not ask what Jesus meant, as if they had misheard the intent of his words, because they thought his answer explained why he used the word “zeal” from David’s song of lament. They could not see themselves as the cause of Judaism’s destruction, through being teachers of spiritual matters, but with no connection whatsoever to God.

In verses 21 and 22, where John explained that Jesus was not speaking in physical terms about a temple, the NRSV translation needs more tweaking to fully grasp what was written by John. That translation says, “But he was speaking of the temple of his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” The Greek written is as follows:

21 “Ekeinos de elegen peri tou naou tou sōmatos autou .”

22 “hote oun ēgerthē ek nekrōn ,

“emnēsthēsan hoi mathētai autou hoti touto elegen ,”

“kai episteusan tē graphē kaitō logo hon eipen ho Iēsous .”

This begins with the capitalized word “Ekeinos,” which importantly states “The one there.” More than a simple, lower-case translation as “he,” referring to Jesus of Nazareth – the mortal man talking with the leaders of the temple – this capitalization acts as an important statement that God was “The one there” doing all the talking that came from the lips of Jesus. Without understanding that important clue, obviously stated in divine language, one thinks the body of Jesus is the only temple in the flesh that can ever be; and, that is not the case.

To think that limits the power of God. While it can state that Jesus’ flesh was a temple unto the Lord, it becomes Jesus-worship to think he is the only temple God can ever live in. The Jews made the same mistake, when David first had the idea to build a cedar house for the Ark, on which God could live. God told Nathan to let David know God does not need a physical building that cannot move freely. That meant the temple unto God was David; and, just as Jesus was another temple unto God, so too were twelve of Jesus’ Apostles and many, many others who were reborn in the name of Jesus Christ. God cannot be limited as to who He can enter and set up divine residence.

When that is understood, verse 21 says, “God then was speaking concerning the temple of the body for God.” Those words came out of John, who wrote as a temple unto God, as a Saint in the name of Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus was a body of flesh that spoke the words of God, so too was John and all other true Christians. This makes Jesus the model by which all who are married to God will become.

This then has verse 22 state first: “at which time then Jesus Christ [the Son of God] has been raised up out from dead,” this is no longer limited to the coming death of Jesus of Nazareth on a crucifix, three years later. Instead, it says that everyone who ceases being of death [a mortal with a soul imprisoned in flesh bound to die], through self-sacrifice [marriage to God, as a soul merged with His Holy Spirit], then God will live in one’s heart, making one become a temple unto God. One becomes raised up as a soul awake with eternal life, having been resurrected as Jesus, with his Christ Mind once more leading a body of flesh. Jesus becomes the ruler of the Christians, the King of a spiritual realm that is one’s soul.

The second part of verse 22 then follows by stating: “called to mind those learners of him [Jesus as the Son of man] that this [transfiguration] God has commanded.” This says the disciples transforming into Apostles makes them all be like Jesus, where they are “called to mind” through the brain stepping aside and allowing the Mind of Crist take control over their flesh. This is what Jesus would tell his disciples, some of who began to follow Jesus after encountering him that first Passover of his ministry.

Finally, verse 22 includes two use of “kai,” which forces one to take notice of the importance written in this third part. It says (importantly), “they were entrusted with the truth of meaning found in Scripture.” That means they no longer needed some rabbi to tell them the meaning of the sacred texts, because they began to understand divine language and speak it also.

Then verse 22 ends by saying (importantly), “this [ability to understand] divine utterance that had spoken Jesus,” which was they later understood the meaning of what Jesus spoke that day to the Jews of the temple. This means they also would have a God-given ability to have total recall, not only of experiences in their lives, but the whole history as written in sacred texts. Just as Jesus had that ability, as a human extension of God, so too did the Apostles as human extensions of God, reborn in the name of His Son.

As a reading selected for the season of Lent, when self-sacrifice is a call to be tested in one’s commitment to God, the lesson must be seen as a question that asks: Are you a bridesmaid with plenty of oil in your lamp [Jesus and Apostles]?; or, Are you an empty lamp pretending to be a bridesmaid to God [a leader of the Jews, a destroyed temple to God]?”

On a Sunday where the Ten Commandments have to be seen as the marriage vows between a soul and God, the first agreement is to wear God’s face only, taking on His holy name. Jesus was married to God and when he went into ministry his face did not rise to speak to anyone. The face Jesus wore in the temple was the face of God, so God spoke through his lips. The Jews who ruled over those who knew nothing, kept them ignorant, therefore beholding to their interpretations of Law, none of which instructed the commoners to have their souls marry God.

For modern Christians, the same scenario needs to be seen. People calling themselves Christians are just as lost as were those people calling themselves Jews. Because they were told they were God’s chosen people, with nothing more to do than be born and breathe air; so too are Christians told all they have to do to be God’s chosen people is believe in Jesus as the Christ, with little else required, all else being optional, due to weekly forgiveness at church. The rulers of the Jews are in essence the same as the leaders of the denominations of Christianity, whenever a Christian leader teaches from a position of ignorance, not having his or her soul married to God, thus being able to understand Scripture as did Jesus in this story.

A test in the wilderness cannot end successfully if one wanders out alone, having only his or her brain to will-power them through forty days of some form of external denial. Lent can only be successful when one’s soul is married to God. Only then can one release all thought of the lusts for things in the world and become in the name of Jesus Christ, able to become the temple of the Lord.

Language, Psalms, Teaching

Psalm 19:1-14 – Sacrifice for the love of God

Leave a comment

1 The heavens declare the glory of God, *

and the firmament shows his handiwork.

2 One day tells its tale to another, *

and one night imparts knowledge to another.

3 Although they have no words or language, *

and their voices are not heard,

4 Their sound has gone out into all lands, *

and their message to the ends of the world.

5 In the deep has he set a pavilion for the sun; *

it comes forth like a bridegroom out of his chamber;

it rejoices like a champion to run its course.

6 It goes forth from the uttermost edge of the heavens

and runs about to the end of it again; *

nothing is hidden from its burning heat.

7 The law of the Lord is perfect

and revives the soul; *

the testimony of the Lord is sure

and gives wisdom to the innocent.

8 The statutes of the Lord are just

and rejoice the heart; *

the commandment of the Lord is clear

and gives light to the eyes.

9 The fear of the Lord is clean

and endures for ever; *

the judgments of the Lord are true

and righteous altogether.

10 More to be desired are they than gold,

more than much fine gold, *

sweeter far than honey,

than honey in the comb.

11 By them also is your servant enlightened, *

and in keeping them there is great reward.

12 Who can tell how often he offends? *

cleanse me from my secret faults.

13 Above all, keep your servant from presumptuous sins;

let them not get dominion over me; *

then shall I be whole and sound,

and innocent of a great offense.

14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my

heart be acceptable in your sight, *

O Lord, my strength and my redeemer.

——————–

This is the Psalm of David selection for the thirds Sunday in Lent, Year B, from the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. This song of praise will be read in unison or sung by a cantor, following an Old Testament reading from Exodus 20, listing the Ten Commandments. It will precede an Epistle reading from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where he talked of God’s foolishness being greater than all the world’s wisdom. Finally, this song of David accompanies a Gospel reading from John, which tells of Jesus’ first trip to Jerusalem for the Passover and his encounter at the temple.

This song of praise paints a clear picture of one’s faith, trust and devotion to Yahweh, the Lord God. Verses 1 through 4 show poetically the wonders of Creation, where the workings of nature – the sun, stars, planets, moons – have all be set on their courses with purpose and plan, which goes far beyond the ability of a human brain to comprehend. They become the way David sang about the wisdom of God being greater than human intelligence.

In verse 5, where the sun is said to rise above the horizon, bringing light and life to the earth, this is said to be “like a bridegroom out of his chamber.” The significance of that imagery states how David’s soul was married to God’s Holy Spirit. David’s soul was a wife to God. To then sing, in the same verse, “it rejoices like a champion to run its course” says the light of day is when the truth can be known. The joy of that light is the joy held in one’s soul.

In verse 7, where David sings, “The law of the Lord is perfect,” this refers to the Ten Commandments, which are the wedding vows that married the Israelites to God, as all became His wives. “The Law,” in Hebrew is “Torah,” which goes far beyond the Ten Commandments. The “perfection” becomes a statement of “completeness” (from “tamim”), where that implies a cleansing of a soul from blame or sin, making one as sound as is God. This state cannot exist in one without union, two joined as one whole. That unity is what “revives the soul,” where the Hebrew “shub” states a “return” of a lost soul to God.

When David sang in verse 8, “The statutes of the Lord are just and rejoice the heart,” this refers to the union of God placing His throne within one’s heart, where the laws are etched upon the walls of that organ. The heart center is the place of love, meaning God can only enter one’s heart when one loves God with all one’s heart, soul and mind.

When David sang in verse 9, “The fear of the Lord is clean,” the intent of “tahor” is purity, as a soul no longer dirtied by transgressions, past, present or future. That purity leads one’s life in the flesh to be righteous, so the only judgment of one’s soul by God can be the reward of eternal bliss in union with God. This reward is far greater than anything the material realm can offer, where gold is lusted for by so many who remain lost. Salvation is far better than gold.

In verse 11, David refers to the one whose soul is married to God as His “servant” (“ebed”), but service unto the Lord is enlightening and it leads one to repair all past inequities, especially those kept in secret. The Lord knows all, so no secrets can ever be hid.

It is that exposure that leads one to surrender self to the Will of God. This commitment of marriage then will “keep [God’s] servant from presumptuous sins; let them not get dominion over [one]; then shall [one] be whole and sound, and innocent of a great offense.” (verse 13)

Verse 14 then says poetically how a servant of God will speak the words that are God, which please Him and one’s soul. Those words come from the “meditation of the heart,” which is where God lives within a wife. That presence says one’s soul has been redeemed or saved from death of all mortal limitations. To avoid the traps of death demands one have the strength of God within one’s being. Without God, one is too weak to defeat the lures of the world.

As a song of praise read during the season of self-sacrifice that is Lent, it is clear that marriage to God is the epitome of that price one must pay for redemption. Lent is a period of personal experience, more than a test of what one has been taught to know, without having “been there, done that.” One cannot experience marriage by living with one’s parents or seeing friends being married at an altar. One can only know marriage by being married; and marriage to God is a feeling that cannot be imagined without personal experience.

This song of praise during Lent says a wilderness testing is not about forced compliance or an expectation to hurt and suffer from being torn from something one thinks one cannot ever do without. The Lenten experience can only be passed through love and willingness to be tested. This element of love is the essence of marriage to God. David sang praise to state how wonderful it is to be tested for one’s faith, because one’s faith comes from personal experience that one never wants to let go.