Personal Thoughts

In the King James we read, “How long wilt thou go [gad] about, O thou backsliding daughter? For the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall encompass a man.” What is the new thing God’s going to do [in Jeremiah 31:22] under the terms of the New Covenant [Jeremiah 31:31-34]? Most English translations mimic the KJV and some see this in a protective sense [NET & RSV. “protect a man;” The LXX adds “in safety”]. The CSB and NASB20 say “shelter a man.” But the CSB footnote says that a woman will “court” a man, which is admittedly different. The Amplified Bible adds in parenthesis the words, “tenderly love.”

Backsliding vs. Encompassing

The words “backsliding” and “encompassing” differ in spelling only by a single letter, and that letter is one of two different ‘s’ sounds, so they are homophones. We must assume this was deliberate on the part of the prophet. He might have chosen a better word for “encompass” but wanted to use this writing style to shock and awe us. In Jeremiah 31:21 the prophet exhorts Israel to return to Palestine and to the Lord. They turned “from” Him; now they must return back “to” Him!

The Woman

The idea of a woman “encompassing” a man means according to John Calvin, “Jehovah would make the feeblest of them more than a match for the most powerful of their foes.” In Jeremiah 31:11 we read, “For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.” And He used a woman to do so? I can think of only one woman in the Bible that might fit that description: Esther [Esther 4:14].

Maybe the words amount to an aphorism as if the prophet were foretelling of a time when wives will take on a greater role or different role in relation to their husbands, maybe as protectress. This form of the word “to encompass” can mean “to no longer be aloft” toward her husband. Maybe they will show themselves more affectionate. [We, men, can only hope!]

Matthew Henry interpreted, “A woman [is] the virgin Mary, [who] enclosed in her womb the Mighty One [The Hebrew word used here for “man”]; … God is called … the Mighty God (Jeremiah. 32:18), as also is Christ in Isaiah. 9:6, where his incarnation is spoken of, as it is supposed to be here. He is El-Gibbor, the mighty God.”

The Man

What about considering the “woman” to be the Jewish nation and the man [the word references his strength, not gender] being the Lord? God calls Israel a “virgin” in verse 21. Verse 22 would then speak of a day when the Jewish people would once again embrace the Lord in their hearts. This interpretation supports verse 31-34 about the New Covenant and a new heart given to God’s people. It also makes more sense out of the first part of verse 22 [NKJV]: “How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter?”

The Signposts

God spoke of sign-posts (guide posts) they can read to identify the way back. Whether speaking literally of the trip to Jerusalem under Nehemiah or spiritually of repentance and serving God, they could not feign ignorance. These signposts could speak of actual monuments erected to a past filled with lessons learned along the way. In a literal sense, they will be returning to Judea from exile. In a spiritual sense, they have learned well the Schema [Deuteronomy 6:4] that God alone is the One and only true God. When Jeremiah awoke from his vision [Jeremiah 31:26] he shared God’s promise of the New Covenant which comes through Christ. “The restoration of Israel is grounded on God’s covenant in Christ…” [Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary]. “Erect for yourself guideposts and look to the way you came. Return to your cities and your God.”

One More thing

But now consider one more thing, Isaiah 43:19, where God promises doing a “new thing” and asks if we will recognize it when it happens. “But, Lord, how can we, unless you tell us what and when?” He only gave us this: a woman shall encompass a man. The distinctions that once separated them and kept them so far apart will no longer be tools of dissension. A woman will be restored to her rightful Edenic place at a man’s side and as a man’s aid and companion [Genesis 2:20]. Relationships will be restored. Hearts will be made new and there will be peace. The  Bride of Christ will be one with her Lord.  [Numbers 6:24-26].

Bishop Richard Chenevix Trench, Archbishop of Dublin, 1864-1884, wrote “Notes on The Parables of Our Lord,” a copy of which I discovered on my bookcase, and I proceeded to enjoy reading. Dr. Trench has made the task of learning our Lord’s Parables much easier (also thanks to Google for providing the translation of the Latin footnotes, where necessary). His work indexed 30 parables; so, this plans to be a most delightful journey into the future, since our Savior’s parables give us glimpses into “The Kingdom of Heaven.” We are stretching our faith to peer through the lattice work at the gate of Glory, our eternal residence, to see what we can see in anticipation of that day when those gates will swing wide open and welcome us home.

Richard Trench called the parable, “A wonderful instrument.” It is a necessary vehicle for knowing God. To explain Truth without the parables in theological jargon (maybe gibberish), it would mean, as Trench pointed out, “… for the worst; giving up of living realities which truly stir the heart, and getting of dead metaphysical abstractions in their room.” Perhaps, I went too far in quoting the Bishop, but what is clear is that a glimpse of heaven cannot be understood in technical terms but only through the analogies of this life that give us that glimpse. We are Moses, asking of God, “shew me thy glory” [Exodus 33:18]. If, for example, a married couple, as believers, have come to—even in a small way—experience the “oneness” God spoke of to Adam they have caught a glimpse of, what Paul called, “the great mystery” concerning Christ and the Church. [Ephesians 5:32].

There is another benefit to Jesus’ parables. Learning is cumulative, that is, we build the present understanding of life on what we have understood to be true in our past. But what ever does someone do when they learn that in Christ life begins over [John 3:3]! How does one look at the habits and principles by which they governed themselves, the moral code by which society formed their conscience, the lifestyle they have grown comfortable with, and relegate it all to the ash heap of what is no longer who they are or who they want to be? Is life before Christ wasted? Not at all. No past experience is to be dismissed as meaningless while parables are now a real part of learning. Whatever our experience, it has become a real part of our testimony, our witness, not just to others but—most of all—to ourselves of the miraculous love of God.

But there is yet a third benefit. Parables are truth easily recalled. Abstract theology is soon forgotten, or worse, irrelevant bits and pieces of a dead doctrine that is never argued anymore. As our relationship with Christ deepens and our faith becomes stronger we discover how much we have grown in the Truth [1 Peter 2:2]. The parable of life, the story that is us and the stories Jesus shared are readily recallable as reminders of the living hope that embraces the heart, especially in the hard times. Parables become the memorable garb of God’s Word—”no skeletons of truth,” says Dr. Trench, “but all clothed, as it were, with flesh and blood.” The academic ramblings once the entertainment of young minds and collegiate life, we can no longer adequately explain—nor do we want to—to the discouraged or weak in faith. But when I read in Hebrews 12:7 “God deals with us as with sons and daughters,” this is life and, in some comforting way, I get it!

Sometimes a biblical word study can be rewarding. Consider the idea behind our word “to suppose” in Philippians 2:25 [King James Version]: Paul testified, “I supposed it necessary to send … Epaphroditus [to Philippi]….”

The English definition means “to assume that something is the case … but without proof.” When we read about Epaphroditus being near death, his healing and his subsequent trip to Philippi to revive the spirits of a church whose sorrow was near overwhelming [Philippians 2:25-30], this definition isn’t working for us! When Paul testified, “I supposed it necessary to send [him to Philippi], the English word emphasizes the notion that whether or not it was “necessary” to send him was “assumed but without proof.” And this interpretation is irrelevant to the text.

In Philippians 2:25-30, Paul, after much consideration, (1) realizing Epaphroditus’ concern for the believers in Philippi after they had heard that he was near death—the same Epaphroditus who, himself, (2) was burdened for the work there, Paul assumed[?] it necessary to send Epaphroditus to Philippi. (3) They would be overjoyed to see him alive and well. Not only this but (4) Paul, too, was sorrowful until their joy was restored.

These four reasons tell us that the Greek word put an emphasis on the thought process behind the decision and not the proof of it. In verse 28 Paul used the word (in the NET) translated “the more eager” [King James: ‘carefully’] indicating a sense of urgency attached to this necessity. Paul had “proof” of Epaphroditus’ recovery and, if he “supposed” anything, it was the joy by which Epaphroditus would be received in Philippi.

The biblical term means “after a more careful and deliberate, objective, consideration of the facts, I sent him.” This is why most translations went with the idea of “considerable thought” instead of “assume.” The NET reads n verse 25, “I have considered it necessary to send Epaphroditus….”

Now consider one other example, Philippians 2:3 “Let each esteem other better than themselves.” Here the King James Version decided to use our word “esteem” which is a better choice than “assume” because Paul wants us to consider the importance of our relationship with one another and make a deliberate effort to say, “You first!” when it comes to opportunity for ministry and getting in line for blessings. Let’s briefly look at some synonyms of this word “suppose” or “esteem” in the New Testament that carry a different emphasis. [Refer to the chart shown here.]

In Acts 16:27, the warden of the Philippian prison when the angel freed Paul and Silas from their shackles “supposed” the other prisoners had fled. The word here is more like our English word because the guard was planning to take his own life assuming the prisoners fled to freedom—when no one did!

There is a another synonym in Philippians 1:16 in which those opposing the Gospel of grace “supposed [believing] to add affliction to [Paul’s] bonds [he was then incarcerated for the Gospel]:” This word emphasizes personal belief in the results of an intended action. In some cases it answers the question “I should think so!” This word, unlike our word in 2:3, is driven by feeling and not thoughtful consideration. And the feeling here, no doubt, is hate.

Lastly there is the well known word indicating personal opinion [and not much more] found in Philippians 3:4 ” If any other man thinks [supposes] that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh … ” It means to imagine something as opposed to what is truly understood.

Any lesson to learn here? Our first word “to come to a deliberate and considered conclusion” is often translated “to count”—as in Philippians 3:7-8:

But what things were gain to me, those I counted [supposed, considered] loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count  [consider] all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count [consider] …  [the Living Bible reads:] ‘worth less than nothing’  … that I may win Christ…”

Amen!!

How Adam’s sin imputes to all men isn’t so clearly explained in Scripture. This is probably more a translation issue than some reason on God’s part not to reveal it to us. Adam’s disobedience brought death upon all but nowhere is it said to be the reason we disobey! The idea of a fallen human nature might be true but it is only thought to be in our explanations and not the Biblical text. [The New Living Translation of the New Testament uses the phrase “sinful nature” 27 times only in Paul’s Epistles referring to “the flesh.”]

A key verse to know is Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that [because] all have sinned.” Saint Augustine read this verse in an Old Latin translation; The final phrase “for that all have sinned” he understood to mean, “in whom [Adam] all sinned.” This is not the well-accepted translation of the Greek word, “for.” If we fault Adam for anything it is that, as Francis Godet wrote, “he laid human life open to the power of sin.” By “sin” we mean the revolt of all mankind against God. Some see Adam as our representative or proxy in Eden; so, when he sinned, he did it on our account. We only know that God decided that there was only one way to save Adam and all mankind—through Christ. The first Adam introduced us to evil; the Last Adam defeated and removed it. Paul’s message is grace.

A Few Things We Do Know

(1) Because of Adam’s disobedience, God would forbear any punishment until Christ came [Romans 3:25-26]. Meanwhile mankind is denied access to the Tree of Life [Genesis 3:22, 24].

(2) As Paul said in 2 other verses, Romans 11:32 and Galatians 3:22, “God has concluded [imprisoned: held] everyone in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all and that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to us who believe. The word, “concluded” means to hold in prison. This is good news! God was saying that aside from His mercy and Faith in Christ, there is no pathway back to Eden and to Him—there is no salvation and no freedom from the bondage to sin. God passed judgment on mankind, not to punish but to show mercy (grace). Scripture is saying that when Adam was escorted out of Eden, God knew that He would be required [Matthew 26:39] to send His Son to Calvary before mankind would have another opportunity to eat of the Tree of Life [Revelation 22:14].

Romans 5:19 tells us, “as by one man’s disobedience many were deemed [made] sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be deemed [made] righteous” “Made” is the wrong word. The Greek means more at “appointed” or “declared.” Most Protestants have no problem translating the second clause this way: ” by the obedience of one [Christ] shall many be deemed [declared] righteous.”This supports God’s decision to “conclude all in unbelief.”

(3) Thirdly, Paul called us all sinners. This word used for sinning, meaning to “miss the target,” is defined in Romans 3:23 as “coming up short of the Glory of God [the target]. It was for His glory and to glorify Him we were created and now we missed that highest of callings [Psalm 86:9, 12; Matthew 5:16; 1 Corinthians 6:20].

Whatever happened with Adam, God saw it as an evil touching all mankind. One commentary says, “When Adam sinned, the human race sinned, because the human race was in Adam.” Augustine then declared “The entire human race that was to pass through woman into offspring was contained in the first man… and humanity produced what humanity became….” [Augustine, “On the City of God” 13,3].

The Fall of Adam

In Romans 5:15 [NET] we read “…if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did … the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many!” (1) The word “transgression” here comes from a Greek word meaning “to deviate from or wander off the path.” It is probably here that Saint Augustine coined the terms “The Fall” and “original sin.” (2) Paul seemed to be saying: If we all died through Adam”s disobedience [and we did!] now Jesus’ death can provide by faith the eternal life we lost when Adam was driven out of Eden [1 Corinthians 15:21]. What Adam broke, Jesus fixed.

Justification Through Christ

Paul, finally, argues in Romans 5:16 “for the judgment was [caused] by one [Adam] to condemnation, but the free gift [through Jesus’ death] is of many offenses unto justification.” Perhaps, we should not leave unnoticed that in Romans 5:15 Paul’s attention was on the sin, whereas in verse 16, it was on the sinner, who was ultimately God’s interest. God’s move to expel Adam and Eve from Eden was not an act of punishment, as if, all God could think about was their disobedience. His thoughts were on the sinner—on us. God evicted Adam and Eve as an act of mercy anticipating the day when Christ would die and rise again to provide for our  justification  [Romans 4:25].

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God,” Paul wrote to the Romans, “that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”“ [Romans 12:1-2].

How is God’s desire for our service to Him reasonable? How is it reasonable for a believer to surrender their life—not for a short time, not in part, but—in total and for all time to God’s Will? The answer lies in the logic in three traits that define His will for us: good, acceptable, and perfect. And these three coincide remarkably well to the three aspects of how we understand and learn: what is unchanged, what we can relate to, and what answers to our interest in How much?

1. Good – God’s Will is in substance and nature unchangingly and purely good. How should we understand James 1:17 “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” His Will for us is faithful as it is true with “ no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” God, Himself is good, Asaph wrote in Psalm 73:1. Goodness is the indispensable quality of a holy and loving God—a God who changes not [Malachi 3:6].

His Will is reasonable because it is always and only good, never varying or diminishing or becoming other than purely good. His goodness, who He is remains constant and steadfast, unrepentant in love and mercy.

Even Darius, King of the Persians when he saw Daniel was not eaten by the Lions in the den, realized that “God is the living God, And steadfast forever; His kingdom is the one which shall not be destroyed, And His dominion shall endure to the end [always]” [Daniel 6:26]. His mercies are sure [Isaiah 55:3]. His Spirit our guarantee [2 Corinthians 1:22]. Great is His faithfulness [Lamentations 3:23]. Our trust can be in Him; so strong is our assurance that we are completely at peace no matter where His will leads us [Isaiah 26:3].

2. Acceptable – The word is well-pleasing, not only to God but to the believer who obeys. We serve Him not under duress or fear but gladly, joyously, happily. We are David crying,”Show me Your ways, O LORD; Teach me Your paths. Lead me in Your truth and teach me, For You are the God of my salvation; On You I wait all the day.” [Psalm 25:4-5]. We have toyed with our own wills; we have listened to other voices who claimed wisdom; we tried other ways, foolishly. There is no pleasure that can quench that inner thirst for a meaningful life and happiness but the joy of pleasing our Lord.

His will is reasonable because we have proven there is none other as His will that brings a sure happiness.

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount called us blessed [happy] when we serve and follow Him [Matthew 5:3-12]. It is a joy no longer dependent on circumstances for meaning.

3. Perfect – His will is complete. How much of my life does it encompass? How much of me does it require? Every part and all of me. It has transformed my thinking, given me a new mind, a new perspective, divine insight into God’s heart, and a clearer and ever expanding understanding of God’s Word— and of Himself, also. I hear Paul exclaiming with a resolute conviction, “I am alive in Him; yet not I, but Christ is alive in me: and the life which I now live in this flesh I live because of the faithfulness of God’s Son, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”

His Will is reasonable because it answers to every need, every concern, every desire, every want, every dream I have ever had or might have.

What was not possible unless Jesus drank from “the cup of suffering [The Cross]”? He appeared to negotiate with God for another way to provide salvation: “Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me” [Luke 22:42]. Jesus had just finished supper with His disciples including the Passover and the breaking of bread which He symbolized as His body [Luke 22:19]. He was clearly talking about His coming death.

Perhaps, though, the translation “if you are willing” requires explanation. “If you are willing” might better read “If you choose or purpose or counsel” to remove this cup from me …. And then His words fell off as if He paused to reconsider His prayer. It is not uncommon to see this when the sentence is logically leading somewhere the speaker does not want to go or does not need to go. In the language of the Old Testament it is used rhetorically in questions expecting a “No.” Answer. It is sometimes, though rarely, used in wishing or expressing strong desire.

It is also not unusual to see the rest of a sentence starting with “if” missing. It is as if in mid sentence Jesus changed His thought and conceded or surrendered to whatever was already decided before the world was even created [1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8]. Jesus seem to correct Himself: “nevertheless not my will,… be done.” He knew what the Father knew that this “cup” was the only way to provide for our salvation.

My argument is prima facie but this is, perhaps, the only scripture that declares without equivocation that Jesus’ crucifixion was the only way through to our salvation. Although this truth is shared in a number of other verses in our Bible, that He would die for sin [1 Corinthians 5:7]; that He would pay a ransom to redeem us from sin [Mark 10:45]; that, indeed there was no other way to God except through Christ [John 14:6]; or that there is no other name that saves [Acts 4:12], Jesus’ Garden prayer in His agony adds the distinct and emphatic notation that there was no alternative—His crucifixion was the sole path for us to reconciliation with God.

Hebrews 9:12 and 22 agreeably notes what Jesus’ crucifixion provided “by his own blood … having obtained eternal redemption [concluding] without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.” But it came up short in declaring that God did not consider another plan for our salvation—because there was no other to be considered!

Interestingly also, the writer limited the provision of Jesus’ death to “forgiveness” although it was far more: propitious, expiatory, conciliatory, and redemptive. Some argue that His death might not have been necessary only to “forgive” sin. We forgive one another without the need for sacrifice. But this argument has no teeth because Jesus’ death was a lot more! As Paul taught: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” [2 Corinthians 5:21 NKJV]. Forgiveness is a necessary aspect of reconciliation, though the reverse may not be true. I may forgive someone for hurting me but not want to restore them to friendship for a number of reasons. Perhaps, they have not changed? But if I am reconciled with them, there is no possible sense in which I have not forgiven them. Calvary was a lot more that mere forgiveness. The writer to the Hebrews spoke of forgiveness because that was the understanding behind the sin and trespass offerings

When the question is inevitably raised: Is it not possible to find another way to save mankind, we only need listen to Jesus’ agony in the Garden to learn, “No, there is no other way!”

And now, we know!

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly [powerless to save] elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? … These things may be treated as an allegory for these are the two covenants … For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers [corresponds] to Jerusalem which now is, and [Hagar] is in [spiritual] bondage with her children. … If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit. [Galatians 4:9, 24, 25; 5:25]

Elements

Elements specifically refers to the first principle[s] in a series to which the elements of that series “take their rise” or belong [ejusdem generis*]. In the context Paul was referencing the first few in a list of Jewish religious practices. The Amplified Bible reads: “elemental principles [of religions and philosophies].”

The Allegory

Paul makes his point using the allegory** [Galatians 4:24]. We learn by comparison. So here, Paul begins by referencing the festivals, “days, and months, and times, and years” [Galatians 4:10] and compares their power to redeem us to the Spirit’s work in us. Religious celebrations are powerless to save. He called them “weak and beggarly” [Galatians 4:9]. To explain, in an analogy the Galatians would understand, he contrasts Hagar’s son with Isaac and the City of Jerusalem compared to the New Jerusalem. The King James says “answers to” [Galatians 4:25] or corresponds to the City of Jerusalem.

The List

On the term translated “answers to” or “corresponding to,” Pythagorus, I am told, gives the best example of the use of this word. when he listed opposing principles in 2 columns, thusly:

 

Using Paul’s comparison: He lists elements describing Ishmael’s descendants and the opposing list regarding Isaac:

What is Paul telling us?

Our Christian Experience

We must not relegate our Christian experience to only a Sunday Morning Service. We are always in danger of investing too much interest and value in Christian ritual. Much time during the week is spent in choreographing or orchestrating the “elements” of that weekly gathering and maybe less effort in prayer and study of the Word. Paul for the third time in these closing chapters of his epistle used our word translated “elements” in Galatians 5:25 to refer to our behavior as Spirit-led believers. The ESV interprets this to mean that we should stay in step with the Spirit’s leadership. Not a bad thought:

“If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in [behave in accordance with] the Spirit.”

We might list the elements of our Christian experience in 2 columns: One Ritual and the other Spiritual. Which side has our attention more?

…walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham – Romans 4:12

.. as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy – Galatians 6:16

————-
* Ejusdem Generis” If a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles, a court might use ejusdem generis to hold that such vehicles would not include airplanes.
**allegory – picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning.

The Eden Story still contains mysteries about human nature before sin entered which church scholarship gave up trying to unwrap; so, they simply labeled Post-Eden Adam as “fallen.” On this matter I, too, have sought for explanations—my being less satisfied with the “2 nature” theory used to exegete Romans 7.

In Romans 7 Paul outlines the hopelessness of the person (be they Christian or no) in unsuccessfully striving to please God through steadfast and faithful obedience to—however they interpret—the Law of God or the Word of God. Paul came to recognize that the temptation to sidestep off into what God would not approve of [this is a picturesque word for sin found in the Bible]—this—only exposes our weakness. Perhaps, this is the “fallenness” in our nature? Whether or not Adam was to blame, I leave to the scholars for now.

What I am suggesting is not new but basic evangelical doctrine that without the grace of God we not only could not be saved, we could not be faithful to that salvation. Temptations, as Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 10:13, requires the faithfulness of God to make us over comers. In Romans 7:25 Paul exclaimed, “I thank God” and then he proceeded to talk in chapter 8 about the work of the Spirit in a believer’s life.

Since I have gone to meddling—like every good preacher is wont to do: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” [1 Corinthians 15:58].

Paul spoke in this verse of our “labor” in the Lord. This word strongly denotes effort—to the point of exhaustion [John 4:6]. And what is more challenging to me than—well—me? There is nothing God can’t do if we are His instruments to do it!

We know all this, but as C. S. Lewis said once, “It helps to have the band playing while we march!” That band is the inner voice of the Spirit in terms of His peace and conviction that interjects life into all 3 aspects of our nature: He “empowers” our walk [our actions]; He “inspires” our passions [our feelings]; and He “enlightens” our understanding [our mind]. All we have to do is “yield” to Him—let Him lead.

The good thing in all this is that someday we will be “like” Jesus [1 John 3:2] which, itself, should encourage us not to give up on ourselves [1 John 3:3]. He was one day like us, tempted [yet sinless] in order that some day we may be like Him [when this carnal weakness we exhibit will no longer define us] as Paul wrote, [1 Corinthians 15:43] “… sown in weakness; … raised in power….”

David’s Heart

Then I thought about King David who, by his own admission, enjoyed thinking about God [Psalm 1:1] even without any knowledge of the Cross. David’s 51st Psalm reveals on his part a deep sense of a God who forgives without animal sacrifices [Psalm 51:16-17}. He somehow knew that a repentant heart was what God required—generations before Isaiah promoted it in a theological sense. [Isaiah 1:11-18]. In fact God chose David to be Israel’s king—not for his stature or his wisdom [or knowledge] but for his heart! [1 Kings 11:4; Acts 13:22].

Enoch’s Devotion & Noah’s Obedience

And there was Enoch, whose name meant “devoted” [to God]. He “walked with God” [Genesis 5:24]. He left this world about 70 years before Noah [whom Peter called “a preacher of righteousness” – 2 Peter 2:5] which means Enoch lived in a time of debauchery and crime [Genesis 6:5; Luke 17:26-27]. Noah, himself, is in the “Hall of Faith” [Hebrews 11:7]. We have only begun to name Old Testament “saints” who “obtained a good report through faith, [but who had] received not the promise [of the Cross]” [Hebrews 11:39].

Abraham’s Faith

Abraham chose to believe God after God introduced Himself to the patriarch. Their conversation involved a covenant and a promise; so, understandably the theologian would conclude Abraham’s faith in God was a special case [Genesis 15:6]. Abraham’s faith was invested in God’s covenant, we may conclude, because “faith comes by hearing … from God…” [Romans 10:17].

An Open Heart

Yet, God opens the heart [Acts 16:14] and the theologian has long held to a “natural revelation” [Romans 1:19-20] that declares God real to anyone willing to consider Him. This, in some ways, put the onus of responsibility on “fallen” mankind—not to save themselves [No!] but—to believe! Simply believe God is there and maybe spend some time meditating on His love for them. In this regard we might agree with Paul that sinful man has no viable excuse for not seeking God.

Others?

So, I began to wonder if, perhaps, there were others— others, whose hearts sought out in their limited way to know the God they were falling in love with—not for what He could give them but for who He was to them, the Creator and compassionate God [Psalm 116:1]. Somehow they knew He was alone in the universe and that pantheons of imagined beings could not exist because myths realistically explain nothing! [Psalm 62:5]. These few “believers” would have led secret lives [Psalm 91:1] whose inner thoughts longed to meet God because they knew that—unlike the mythological gods—He did indeed care and love them back! [Psalm 23:6; Isaiah 38:17].

It seems that what the Gnostics called “a spark of the divine” was—contrary to the Gnostic idea—in every man, but most snuffed it out rather than seeking to fan it alive!

A Matter of Grace

I say this as a matter of grace without minimizing the urgency of sharing the message of salvation [and of the Cross] in our day [John 21:22]. Christ has come and God wanting this message broadcast to the world has commissioned us to do so! Is salvation provided any other way than through Jesus’ crucifixion? Absolutely no! Salvation comes only by the Savior’s sacrifice of Himself on Calvary’s Cross for us [Acts 4:12].

But are not all the Davids and Noahs and Abrahams and Enochs in ancient times and the men and women of forgotten tribes who sought out the love of God because in their hearts they knew He was there—are not they—in God’s thoughts and on His heart? [Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:15]. He has, indeed, sent the missionary to them to tell them so.

In Glory they may more fully share their stories?

But thou, O Lord, are a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth. – Psalm 86:15

I came across a cable program that claimed that Jesus never existed and that Christianity evolved out of pagan mythology and the Roman government. I am grateful to my Lord that I was prepared to listen to what the speakers had to say—my having done a deep dive into the Biblical idea of God”s Grace and the “Cross.” This is a truth that couldn’t have evolved out of paganism, not only because the idea [along with the worldview it rested on] was provably antithetic to mythological explanations as to the origin of evil or how to eradicate it [I spoke of this in my book “If It Be Possible“] but because—and here is my reason for mentioning this now—the languages of the time [with due respect to Latin and Aramaic] were inadequate to explicate with proper emphasis and clarity the message of God’s grace. This is the message that both the Bible reveals and our Faith [our “religion”] must proclaim. [1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2].

Consider the following [I wrote “Essays in Grace” in this regard]:

1. The Greek language never branched off into other languages: as Latin did into French, Spanish, etc. Dr. Caragounis tells us “Greek, on the other hand, never gave birth to any daughter languages.”
2. The dialect of the Greek is not found in written form in any other document beside the Old and New Testaments. There are inscriptions in the common language of the time that suggests the development of the language into New Testament Greek [Koine] but, as J. B. Lightfoot is reported to have said: “…if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the New Testament generally.” Dr. Caragounis admits that “We do not have any substantial documents of spoken or written Koine by Greeks from the time of the New Testament.”
3. The Language instead of branching merged 7 dialects into one which, after the Apostolic Age, split up again into multiple spoken dialects. Richard Dawkins, a leading proponent of atheism wrote, “It seems probable that language evolves by the cultural equivalent of random genetic drift. … Latin drifted to become Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French….” This is not true of the Greek language!!! Now here’s the “kicker”! Caragounis calls this “unparalleled in the history of language. … Attica Greek could not preserve its purely Athenian character, and entered a course simplification, amalgamating elements from the other Greek dialects… it became … Koine [the Greek of the New Testament].” Dr. Caragounis explained, “In Hellenistic times [when the Scriptures were compiled] the … language is reunited, … and as such goes through its third stage [Koine]. In Byzantinian … times [which follow the time of the apostles and the writing of Scripture] it breaks up once again into Modern Greek.”
4. My amateurish interest in Koine has always been historical and not exegetical. Unlike the scholars who took on the task of translating our New Testament, I only wanted to understand it. That’s why my paper (I submitted as a thesis for a college degree) was in the historical development of the “perfect tense” in Koine. This tense disappears in Modern Greek but scholars have little to go on since in the Byzantinian period of the language which followed Koine everything was written in the Old Classical Greek style [everybody loves Plato]. But I maintain that the perfect tense along with the development of a Greek passive voice out of the little understood “Middle” voice of the language (We don’t have this in English) was critical in explaining “grace”!
5. Curious: the Greek “digamma” which represents the numeral “6” is missing from the language—or at least, our Bible.

Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? – Luke 18:8