What Is Wrong With Homosexuality?

So, what exactly is wrong with homosexuality or homosexual acts? Or more specifically, since this is a Biblical/Christian theology blog: Does the Bible or the church teach against homosexuality or homosexual activity? If so:

• Why does it do so?
• Is it right for it to do so? and
• Do or should such teachings apply to us today, and if so, how?

Before you answer these questions, please first consider and answer these additional questions (Note: I am using "homosexual" and "gay" to refer to either males or females):

I. Is simply being homosexual or having same-sex attractions wrong? If yes, please explain why.

II. If not, then is it the sexual behavior between two persons of the same sex that is wrong? If so, why is that:

1. Is it because the only proper sexual activities between two persons are those that directly or indirectly include both one and only one penis and one and only one vagina? If so, what about sexual activities between two persons when one or both of them has had sex-reassignment surgery so that now one of each sex organ is present even though one or both of them previously had the opposite sex organ?
2. Is it the inability or failure to consummate the actions with coitus (i.e., penis-vagina intercourse) that makes same-sex sexual activities wrong, since except for coitus two women or two men can together do just about everything sexually that a man and a woman can do? If so, what does that mean for deliberate non-coital sexual activity by heterosexual couples, or for heterosexual couples who do not or cannot (due to disability, etc.) consummate all their sexual activities with coitus?
3. Is it because the potential to produce children is what makes marriage and instances of sexual activity okay? If so:
   1. What does that mean for heterosexual couples who use natural or artificial methods to prevent unplanned or unwanted conceptions?
   2. What does that mean for sexual activities between heterosexual couples who cannot or who cannot any longer have children? Consider the following scenarios:
      • A couple discovers before they're married that they won't be able to have children. Should they be able to get married, and if so, should they be able to engage in sexual activities after marriage for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings, even though they know that no children can result from such activities?
      • A couple discovers after they're married that they physically can't have children, and despite many prayers and clinic visits, neither God nor doctors heal their infertility. Can they continue to engage in sexual relations for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings, even though they know that no children can result from such activities?
   If potential childbearing is not the reason for marriage and instances of sexual activity, can two gay persons who have not been changed from their homosexuality (whether they cared to change or tried to change or prayed to be changed, etc.) become a couple and engage in sexual relations for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings?
4. Is it because of a reason I haven't listed? If so, what is that reason?

I am not a philosopher or logician or rhetorician, so I do not pretend to have presented all the necessary and relevant questions for addressing the topic. However, the ones I have posed are those that I would want a person who is promulgating or defending a position to answer.

Thoughts On Communion

Τη αυτη ημερα θεασαμενος τινα εργαζομενον τω σαββατω ειπεν αυτω· ανθρωπε, ει μεν οιδας τι ποιεις, μακαριος ει· ει δε μη οιδας, επικαταρατος και παραβατης ει του νομου.

On the same day, seeing one working on the sabbath, [Jesus] said to him: "Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed: but if you don't know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law." - Codex Bezae at Luke 6:4

See lines 16-20 (beginning in the middle of line 16) in the manuscript page:

Image 391 of 856 - Page 205v

Some background

First read these two older posts I wrote about communion:

"Single-Serving Jesus"

Last Supper, Eucharist, And The Didache

From reading them you can see that there are probably no definitive answers for some of the questions one might have about communion. Rather, there are several traditions on which one may base one's view and practice, and this post addresses some of those questions and options.

Leavened or unleavened bread?

If one considers the Last Supper to have been a Passover meal and bases one's view and practice of communion on that, then one would likely want to use unleavened bread.

If, however, one sees the chronology in the Gospel of John as indicating that the Last Supper occurred before the Passover, then one might want to use leavened bread.

[During lunch in Abu Gosh (near Jerusalem) on April 12, 2009, Randall Buth, who is an expert in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, told me that the New Testament use of ἄρτος (artos = bread, loaf) for the communion loaf without the adjective for "unleavened" (ἄζυμος azymos) doesn't prove anything, because (as I recall his comment) a Hebrew or Aramaic speaker would have used the same word when taking and blessing either leavened or unleavened bread. Randall knew that I had recently been Orthodox, and also knew that the Orthodox Church specifically uses leavened bread for the Eucharist because of GJohn's chronology for the Last Supper, which has it occurring before Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.]

 
If one's view and practice of communion are based on things other than the Last Supper—e.g., Jesus' table meals or His feeding of the multitudes—then one is probably free to use whatever kind of bread one wishes.

Real wine or grape juice? 

I favor using wine in keeping with the Biblical tradition, but based on this informative article from the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible it appears that wine diluted 2:1 or 3:1 with water is probably most in keeping with what was used at the Last Supper and by the early church, though mixing today's wines with more water than a 1:1 ratio will greatly weaken the taste. Such mixed wine would still be strong enough to cause intoxication if too much was drunk (see Paul's comment at 1 Corinthians 11:21), yet weak enough for all to drink (preferably shared from a single cup) without negative effects. While some churches allow white wine, I think the blood symbolism is lost if anything other than red or purple-colored wine or grape juice is used. On the other hand, some early Christian groups used water, not wine, as they apparently viewed taking and sharing a common cup as being more important than what was in the cup.

A single loaf and cup, or individual pieces/wafers/crackers and cups?

Paul's comment at 1 Corinthians 10:17, as well as Jesus' taking of a single loaf (ἄρτος artos) at the Last Supper, are reasons I favor using a single loaf—to be broken as it's distributed, either by each person or by the host after saying the blessing—so as to preserve and present the symbolism of the participating members being one body. Though The Didache preserves a tradition of broken bread pieces (which could have come from a single loaf), the word (κλάσμα klasma "fragment, piece, crumb") is singular in both its occurrences, rather than plural, which has led scholars to speculate that the original text read ἄρτος, as it's hard to see how a single fragment could be "scattered over the mountains" (unless the word meant "broken loaf").

I would favor all drinking from a single cup, as that seems to be the tradition in the Last Supper accounts and 1 Corinthians 10:1-11:34 and The Didache, and also because of this comment from Thomas O'Loughlin:

One of the distinguishing features of the meals of Jesus was that he took a cup and, having blessed the Father, shared it with his disciples. This is a ritual without parallel in the ancient world: it is one thing to offer a thanksgiving over a cup—and by extension over all the cups of the participants of the meal—but quite another to pass a single cup from one to another. Yet here we find this practice: to share a cup is to assert an intimate unity and a common purpose. The disciples have to be prepared to drink from the cup of Jesus (Mark 10:38–39) and thereby they share in his destiny. At the meal in the Didache one of the rituals is that the single cup of the Lord is shared by all those at the meal. One cup is unity, and it cuts across every human boundary and division—it is not accidental that Christians have always tried to find ways around sharing the cup in their celebrations! - (O’Loughlin, T. (2010). The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (95). London; Grand Rapids, MI: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; Baker Academic.)

Separate ritual or meal component? 

Communion originated in the context of a shared meal, and that seems to have been the early church practice. One could open the meal with the blessing and breaking of the bread and the blessing and sharing of the cup, or one could open the meal with the blessing and breaking of the bread and close the meal with the blessing and sharing of the cup. If done as a separate ritual but still in the context of a meal, the bread and the cup could be taken together, either before or after dining.

Closed, semi-closed, or open?

One's practice will be related to what one views communion as being.

• If one views communion as being similar to a covenant meal like the Passover, then one will likely restrict it to those who are in covenant with Jesus, however one so defines being a member of the household of faith. The tradition in The Didache has restricted communion in view. Also, Luke's account of the Last Supper seems to have Jesus making His covenant only with and for those who are at table with Him. (But as noted in my post on Last Supper, Eucharist, And The Didache, the original wording of Luke's account is difficult to determine.)
• Even if regarded as a covenant meal in which communion is restricted to those who have embraced Jesus and His New Covenant, thereby usually excluding non-believers and children who have not yet professed faith in Jesus and/or been baptized, Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 7:12–14 seem to me to allow for the participation of the unbelieving spouses and underage children of believers, should they wish to partake, and I believe Jewish custom was to include children in the covenant feasts and holy days (Jewish males, of course, became part of the covenant people from their 8th day when they were circumcised):

  ¹² I (not the Lord) say to the rest of you: If a brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and she is willing to live with him, he must not abandon (Or divorce) her. ¹³ And if a woman has a husband who is an unbeliever and he is willing to live with her, she must not abandon (Or divorce) him. ¹⁴ For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified because of her husband (Other mss. read (her/the) brother, the reading preferred by most critical Greek New Testaments). Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. (ISV)

• Some may wish to restrict communion because of the warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27ff.:

  27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks from the cup in an unworthy manner will be held responsible for (ἔνοχος enochos) the Lord’s body and blood. 28 A person must examine (δοκιμάζω dokimazō) himself and then eat the bread and drink from the cup, 29 because whoever eats and drinks without recognizing (διακρίνω diakrinō) the body, eats and drinks judgment (κρίμα krima) on himself. 30 That’s why so many of you are weak and sick and a considerable number are dying. (Lit. are falling asleep). 31 But if we judged ourselves correctly (διακρίνω diakrinō), we would not be judged (κρίνω krinō). 32 Now, while we are being judged (κρίνω krinō) by the Lord, we are being disciplined so we won’t be condemned (κατακρίνω katakrinō) along with the world. 33 Therefore, my brothers, when you gather to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you gather it may not bring judgment (κρίμα krima) on you. And when I come I will give instructions concerning the other matters. (ISV)

  While some commentators think that in 11:29 Paul is referring to not recognizing that the bread and wine are really Christ's body and blood (or at least some "special" kind of food and drink), others say it's about not recognizing and treating all those assembled as fellow members of the one body of  Christ. The latter was the basis of his chastisement in the second half of 1 Corinthians 11, and in other parts of 1 Corinthians, including the immediately-following three chapters, Paul wrote about how the church as the body of Christ is composed and is to function. That Paul wrote "without recognizing the body" instead of "without recognizing the body and the blood" further supports 11:29 being not about the bread and the wine but about not properly understanding that all at the table are members one of another and treating everyone accordingly, which may be what the self-examination in 11:28 involves. Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:33–34 further support this understanding of the passage.
• If one views communion as being an extension of Jesus's fellowship meals with followers, sinners, harlots, tax collectors, and any who wished to learn about or enter the Kingdom, or of His feeding of the multitudes, then it could be open to all who are present and wish to partake. Also, Matthew's and Mark's accounts of the Last Supper seem to differ from Luke's account in having Jesus making His covenant "for many."

Other Questions

Bread and wine/grape juice, or not?

Must communion always be done with bread (whether leavened or unleavened) and wine or grape juice? What about crackers or pretzels or chips, or tea or soda? What about people who live in countries where rice or another grain, or some kind of tuber or fruit, rather than wheat and grapes, is their "staple" food and source of fermented or juice beverage?

Who may officiate?

Must communion be officiated over by an ordained or appointed person—e.g., a priest, a pastor, an elder, a deacon, etc.? Or can any person in the assembly bless and offer the bread and wine? How about women? Or children? The questions also apply if the thanking/blessing of the bread and wine/juice/cup are done as part of a meal instead of as a separate ritual.

Real Presence or Spiritual Presence or Symbol or...?

• Do the bread and wine change into Jesus's Real Body and Blood? The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach this, and the Catholics use the term "transubstantiation." The Roman Catholic Church may teach that the priest has the power to effect the change by pronouncing the words of institution ("This is my body.... This is my blood"), but like the Orthodox Church it also teaches that priests call upon the Holy Spirit to effect the change during the epiclesis (literally "calling upon").
• Is Jesus specially present at communion in a real but non-transubstantiation way? Lutherans use the term "consubstantiation" for this, and other Christian denominations also assert that Christ is really present in the bread and wine.
• Are the bread and wine simply symbols of Christ's body and blood?
• Or...?

To Add, Or Not To Add--That Is The Question

It began with me asking on Facebook:

So, where was Mary Magdalene standing during Jesus' crucifixion?

because I had been reading this (Scripture quotes from International Standard Version):

Matthew 27:55 Now many women were also there, watching from a distance. They had accompanied Jesus from Galilee and had ministered to him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

Mark 15:40 Now there were women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of young James and Joseph, and Salome. 41 They used to accompany him and care for him while he was in Galilee. Many other women who had come up to Jerusalem with him were there, too.

Luke 23:48 When all the crowds who had come together for this spectacle saw what had taken place, they beat their chests and left. 49 But all his acquaintances, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, were standing at a distance watching these things.

John 19:25 Meanwhile, standing near Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he kept loving standing there, he told his mother, “Dear lady, here is your son.” 27 Then he told the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

Because of the many differences between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the Gospel of John, some have supposed or concluded that John deliberately "changed" things (e.g., the day and time of the crucifixion) for theological reasons. If so, then what might have been his theological (or other) purpose in putting the women and Mary Magdalene at the cross, as opposed to the Synoptics having them view Jesus' crucifixion from a distance?

In response someone said: "People are actually movable objects. They can stand in different locations as time progresses."

Well, yes, people can move, and that may be what happened.

But is that how we are to read and understand the Gospels?

Are we to conflate the Gospel accounts so as to know "the rest of the story" in each instance where a Gospel might be "missing" something that one of the other Gospels "provides"? Thus here, for instance, are we to say that John's Gospel "adds the detail for us" that at some point Mary Magdalene and maybe a couple of the other women moved to stand by the cross while Jesus was dying on it?

Or should each Gospel be read and taken on its own?

How would Matthew and Mark and Luke and John have wanted us to read and understand their Gospels?

As a possibly poor analogy: Should one use the words and actions of two versions or remakes of a movie to "fill in the details of" (or possibly even "correct") a later or earlier version? In some instances, especially if the films are all based on the same novel or historical event and the director deliberately chose to omit or vary some things, it might be right to do so. But what if the director wanted us to view and understand his version of the story for what it is in its own right without our "adding to" it?

Back to the Gospels.

I’m sure I’m not the first one to see the following:

MATTHEW, MARK AND LUKE:

• Family, Followers, and Friends: These Gospels show Jesus abandoned by all of His family, followers, and friends, and surrounded only by strangers and mockers and enemies - Luke says that all His acquaintances, including the women, stood and watched the crucifixion from a distance.
• Creation: Creation, too, seems to abandon Him, or perhaps mourn His dying, as darkness covers the whole land for three hours. (Matthew also mentions an earthquake at His death, but that may mean something else.)
• God: At the end of that period of darkness, both Matthew and Mark seemingly have God abandon Him, too,* and Jesus doesn't call God "Father." Luke, though, while mentioning the darkness, has Jesus talking and praying to His "Father" (Luke 23:34,46) and nowhere has Him appearing to be abandoned by God or has Him saying, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?"

JOHN:

• Family, Followers, and Friends: John not only has Jesus not totally abandoned by His family, followers, and friends, but has some of those who were closest to Him standing by Him at the cross, and His nearly last words are with them, not with those crucified with Him (or perhaps not even with God - i.e., to whom does He say: "It is finished"?).
• Creation: There is no mention of any darkness.
• God: There is no suggestion that God may have forsaken Him.*

So... how did the Gospel writers and how does God want us to read and understand the Gospels, and how did or do they want us to relate or not relate them to each other?

Another person said that they have problems watching biblical movies because the directors take too much artistic license by "filling things in" for us. They considered their doing so to be presumptuous, as it can change what God wants us to know or what He doesn't want us to know, leading to erroneous concepts of God.

To which I responded: Are we or preachers then doing the right thing when we use the Synoptics to "fill in" for John, or vice-versa?

* I am aware of the likelihood that Jesus' quoting from Psalm 22 ("My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?") may not in fact refer to his being abandoned by God. Quoting the beginning of a Scripture was often a reference to the entire passage, and Psalm 22 ends on a note of triumph, not abandonment:

Psalm 22
To the Director: To the tune of “Doe of the Dawn”.
A Davidic Psalm.
God Delivers His Suffering Servant

    1 My God! My God!
      Why have you abandoned me?
    Why are you so far from delivering me—
      from my groaning words?
    2 My God, I cry out to you throughout the day,
      but you do not answer;
    and throughout the night,
      but I have no rest.
    3 You are holy,
      enthroned on the praises of Israel.
    4 Our ancestors trusted in you;
      they trusted and you delivered them.
    5 They cried out to you and escaped;
      they trusted in you and were not put to shame.
    6 But as for me,
      I am only a worm and not a man,
      scorned by mankind and despised by people.
    7 Everyone who sees me mocks me;
      they gape at me with open mouths
      and shake their heads at me.
    8 They say, “Commit yourself to the LORD;
      perhaps the LORD will deliver him,
    perhaps he will cause him to escape,
      since he delights in him.”
    9 Yet, you are the one who took me from the womb,
      and kept me safe on my mother’s breasts.
    10 I was dependent on you from birth;
      from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
    11 Do not be so distant from me,
      for trouble is at hand;
      indeed, there is no deliverer.
    12 Many bulls have surrounded me;
      the vicious bulls of Bashan have encircled me.
    13 Their mouths are opened wide toward me,
      like roaring and attacking lions.
    14 I am poured out like water;
      all my bones are out of joint.
      My heart is like wax, melting within me.
    15 My strength is dried up like broken pottery;
      my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth,
      and you have brought me down to the dust of death.
    16 For dogs have surrounded me;
      a gang of those who practice of evil has encircled me.
      They gouged my hands and my feet.
    17 I can count all my bones.
      They look at me;
      they stare at me.
    18 They divide my clothing among themselves;
      they cast lots for my clothing!
    19 But as for you, LORD, do not be far away from me;
      My Strength, come quickly to help me.
    20 Deliver me from the sword;
      my precious life from the power of the dog.
    21 Deliver me from the mouth of the lion,
      from the horns of the wild oxen.
    You have answered me.
    22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
      in the midst of the congregation I will praise you, saying,
    23 “All who fear the LORD, praise him!
      All the seed of Jacob, glorify him!
      All the seed of Israel, fear him!
    24 For he does not despise nor detest the afflicted person;
      he does not hide his face from him,
      but he hears him when he cries out to him.”
    25 My praise in the great congregation is because of you;
      I will pay my vows before those who fear you.
    26 The afflicted will eat and be satisfied;
      those who seek the LORD will praise him,
      “May you live forever!”
    27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD;
      all the families of the nations will bow in submission to the LORD.
    28 Indeed, the kingdom belongs to the LORD;
      he rules over the nations.
    29 All the prosperous people will eat and bow down in submission.
      All those who are about to go down to the grave
      will bow down in submission,
      along with the one who can no longer keep himself alive.
    30 Our descendants will serve him,
      and that generation will be told about the Lord.
    31 They will come and declare his righteousness
      to a people yet to be born;
      indeed, he has accomplished it!

International Standard Version. (2011). (Ps 22). Yorba Linda, CA: ISV Foundation.

E.g., see The Father Did Not “Turn His Back”

If Someone Is In Christ, It's A New Creation

Adapted from a comment I made at a blogpost where a church discussed how it had concluded that women could be in church leadership:

In the incarnation God became human, and at the crucifixion Jesus died for all humans' sins as the last Αδάμ/אדם, and through the resurrection Jesus became a life-giving Spirit, the New Creation, the New Human, in Whom all who believe in Him are, whether Jew or Gentile or slave or free or male or female, and with Whom they all are clothed.

Christ is the κεφαλή of the church, which is His body and His bride. All the members of the body, regardless of gender, are to grow up into Him Who is the κεφαλή, and to help all the other members do the same, using the gifts and grace Christ has given them. It's not about gendered or gender-restricted "roles," but about χαρίσματα and χάρις. There is not "male and female" here, but Christ, Who is over all, and through all, and in all.

If someone is in Christ, it's a New Creation.

There is one body, and all its members are priests. It is inconsistent to reject the sacerdotalism that would have male priests in persona Christi stand between believers and God the Father, as is the case in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but retain its vestige in the guise of "male-only" pastors and elders.

We should not judge by the flesh or by appearances and restrict how God's Spirit gifts and builds His church. There is no "male" human nature that Christ exclusively took on, or "male" sin nature that Christ separately nailed to the cross. Human is human, and sin is sin, whether the human is male or female. The Jesus Who lives in male believers is not a different Jesus from the one Who lives in female believers.

Which qualities or fruits or gifts of the Spirit are male? Which are female? Which aspects of the nature of Christ can only be exercised and expressed in the church by males, or can only be exercised and expressed in the church by females? Indeed, if nurturing and caring for and giving His life to and for the church, His body, are priorities of Christ's, then an argument could be made that females are better suited to lead and pastor churches than males.

But it's not about whether it should be "males" or "females" who lead Christ's church. CHRIST leads His church, and He gives and gifts and empowers and builds as He wills.

(Also see "A Quiz For Complementarians")

New Living Translation 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Fail

Mardel had this $140 (Yikes!) Cambridge New Living Translation (NLT) Bible in new condition on sale in their Special Purchase/Bargain Bibles rack for $25: NLT Pitt Minion Reference Bible, Goatskin Leather, Black

It feels great, it's eminently portable, the print is small but still easily readable by me, it has center-column references, it opens perfectly flat, it has two ribbon markers, etc.

I've recommended the NLT to others because of things Bible translators have said, as well as because of some of the passages I've read, so I ALMOST bought this as a briefcase Bible.

But two things stopped me:

1. Though I won a NLT Study Bible (2007) in a drawing from Logos Bible Software, I still mainly work from the Greek text for the New Testament and (as best as I can) my JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh and the Septuagint for the Old Testament.

2. For "fun" I turned to 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and saw that the NLT translates the passage this way:

¹¹Women should learn quietly and submissively. ¹²I do not let women teach men or have authority over them.^[b] Let them listen quietly. ¹³For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. ¹⁴And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. ¹⁵But women will be saved through childbearing,^[c] assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

b. 1 Timothy 2:12 Or teach men or usurp their authority.

c. 1 Timothy 2:15 Or will be saved by accepting their role as mothers, or will be saved by the birth of the Child.

The Greek for the passage is:

11 γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ: 12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ' εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. 13 Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα: 14 καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν. 15 σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης. (Boldface indicating emphasis is per The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament)

My rough and quick translation: "11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 But I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been [greatly?] deceived, has come to be in transgression. 15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holy living with self-control."

I don't see how the NLT's "The woman was deceived, and sin was the result" is a good translation choice. It

1. obscures the subordinate participial clause "having been deceived";
2. loses the emphasis in the Greek on "in transgression"; and
3. severs the connection between the woman's "fallen" state and her (their?) need to be delivered from it per 2:15 by making it appear that "sin" was what happened, not that the woman came to be in a state of (γέγονεν, a perfect verb) transgression.

The NLT also changes the singular "woman" in 2:11-12 to the plural "women," changes the singular verb "she will be saved" in 2:15a to the plural "women will be saved," and IMO overly interprets the Genesis Fall account by adding "by Satan." (When Paul alluded to this in 2 Corinthians 11:3, he wrote "the serpent," not "Satan.")

So I'm sticking with my original language Bibles and, for portability, my other (and cheaper) hand-sized Bibles. Someone else can get this $140 Bible for $25.

More discussion of questionable or curious translations in the NLT can be found in this thread where I first raised the subject of this post.

What Makes It "So"?

I was reading Genesis 1 and noticed that the "and it was so" statements didn't always occur where I would have expected them to.

So I created the following color-coded chart to show when things are "so" and when things are not so "so."

I'm not sure what, if anything, this all might mean, but it's fun to read the text closely like this.

NASB	BHS	When Was It "So"?
1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light (or: "and light was so"). 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.	בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ׃ וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם׃ וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי־אוֹר׃ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאוֹר כִּי־טוֹב וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ׃ וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד׃	God spoke, "and it was so."
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם׃ וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ שָׁמָיִם וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם שֵׁנִי׃	God spoke; and then God made it "so" before "it was so."
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל־מָקוֹם אֶחָד וְתֵרָאֶה הַיַּבָּשָׁה וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לַיַּבָּשָׁה אֶרֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃	God spoke, "and it was so."
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 [And] There was evening and there was morning, a third day.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי לְמִינוֹ אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ־בוֹ עַל־הָאָרֶץ וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע לְמִינֵהוּ וְעֵץ עֹשֶׂה־פְּרִי אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ־בוֹ לְמִינֵהוּ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃ וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי׃	God spoke to the earth, "and it was so"; and then the earth made it "so."
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; [He made] the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 [And] There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים׃ וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם לְהָאִיר עַל־הָאָרֶץ וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים אֶת־הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים׃ וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם לְהָאִיר עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃ וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וּלֲהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃ וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם רְבִיעִי׃	God spoke, "and it was so"; and then God made it "so."
20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 [And] There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף עַל־הָאָרֶץ עַל־פְּנֵי רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים וְאֵת כָּל־נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת אֲשֶׁר שָׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם לְמִינֵהֶם וְאֵת כָּל־עוֹף כָּנָף לְמִינֵהוּ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃ וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים לֵאמֹר פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הַמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וְהָעוֹף יִרֶב בָּאָרֶץ׃ וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי׃	God spoke; and then God made it "so," but never said "it was so."
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה לְמִינָהּ בְּהֵמָה וָרֶמֶשׂ וְחַיְתוֹ־אֶרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ וְאֵת כָּל־רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה לְמִינֵהוּ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב׃	God spoke to the earth, "and it was so"; and then God, not the earth, made it "so."
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃ וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃ וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃ וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת־כָּל־עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל־פְּנֵי כָל־הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת־כָּל־הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ פְרִי־עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה׃ וּלְכָל־חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל־עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֶת־כָּל־יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְהִנֵּה־טוֹב מְאֹד וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי׃	God spoke; and then God made it "so" before "it was so."
2: 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.	וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל־צְבָאָם׃ וַיְכַל אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה׃ וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת׃
5: 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them ("called their name") Man in the day when they were created.	זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם בְּיוֹם בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ׃ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמָם אָדָם בְּיוֹם הִבָּרְאָם׃

"Single-Serving Jesus"

Narrator: Tyler, you are by far the most interesting single-serving friend I've ever met... see I have this thing: everything on a plane is single-serving....
Tyler Durden: Oh I get it, it's very clever.
Narrator: Thank you.
Tyler Durden: How's that working out for you?
Narrator: What?
Tyler Durden: Being clever.
Narrator: Great.
Tyler Durden: Keep it up then.... Right up.

- Fight Club (movie version)

---

"Single-serving friend."

That is what this essentially turns the people at communion into, with everyone having their own personal "single-serving" Jesus. (Cue Depeche Mode.)

Is this right?

Is this wrong?

If John 6:22–59 is Eucharistic such that there is to be a reminder in the Lord's Supper of the manna in the wilderness (Exodus 16:11–36), then there is in fact an individualistic aspect to it, as each person was to gather enough manna for himself or herself—though per Paul's application of Exodus 16:18 in 2 Corinthians 8:13–15, there may also have been some sharing among the people so that each person got what they needed and were supposed to have.

And there may be reasons to use more than one loaf and more than one cup if, as in the tradition preserved in The Didache (pronounced di-duh-khay or di-duh-khee), the Lord's Supper has elements of Jesus's feeding of the 5,000 (Matthew 14:13–21; Mark 6:32–44; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:1–13) and the 4,000 (Matthew 15:32–39; Mark 8:1–10) and there are many people involved, as there were then.

Yet 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 seems to prefer, and perhaps only allows for, a single shared loaf for the people when they come together in church (1 Corinthians 11:17–18,20,33), and probably a single shared cup as well.

If partaking of the bread as Christ's body is to be a reminder of the Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7)—which would undoubtedly be the case if the Last Supper was a Passover Seder as per Matthew 26:17–20, Mark 14:12–17, and Luke 22:7–16—then this would be a further reason for using a single shared loaf at church for the Lord's Supper, as there was ideally to be only one lamb per gathered household (Exodus 12:3–4^[1]), and those who come together in church are family members, being all of the same household of the One God and Father. This understanding could likewise argue for a single shared cup, since the wine at the Passover Seder represented the blood of the one-per-household Passover lamb.

---

^[1] בֵּית אָב, pl. בֵּית אָבוֹת "a father's house." Though indicating the paternal line, the term is synonymous with מִשְׁפָּחָה "family" according to Pentateuch & Haftorahs: Hebrew Text English Translation & Commentary, Soncino Press (Second Edition).

The Lord's Table As A "Happy Meal"

"OFFERING VERSATILITY
AND EFFICIENCY FOR THE
TIMELESS TRADITIONS
OF COMMUNION"
D. H. Williams describes his visit to a megachurch at Christianity Today. The part that struck me was this:

Immediately after the singing, without any announcement, much less Paul's words of institution (1 Cor. 11:23-26), the elements of the Lord's Supper were hurriedly handed around. Again, I was amazed at the blandly efficient nature of this activity. We could have been passing pretzels and soda pop. No one offered any guidance whatsoever on the sharing of this critical ordinance or sacrament. It seemed a strictly vertical encounter between each individual and God.

Chaplain Mike at Internet Monk said about the above: "I call it The Christian Happy Meal, with all the solemnity of going through the drive-up window."

Not too long ago I attended a service at what would probably be called a megachurch, and as I entered the auditorium (aka the sanctuary, I guess), persons with baskets (like the cigarette girls with their trays) were handing out pre-packaged communion kits, similar to the ones in the picture above, to people as they entered.

It was a definite “What The Faith?!?!” moment for me, as I thought of the contrast between this and our small weekly home meetings where after we’ve shared and prayed together and we sense it’s time to remember and celebrate being one body with Him and with each other, we pray and bless and thank God, and then pass around a single small loaf or matzah or slice of bread from which we each break off a piece and eat, followed by a single cup of wine or grape juice from which we each take a drink.

When we bless the cup at the Lord’s Table, aren’t we sharing in the blood of Christ?
And when we break the bread, aren’t we sharing in the body of Christ?
And though we are many, we all eat from one loaf of bread,
showing that we are one body. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17 NLT)
While I agree that taking and celebrating the Lord's Table should be a happy (as in "joyous") meal (and I'm all in favor of celebrating it in a meal setting), when it is packaged and delivered and taken as a "Happy Meal" à la McDonalds, it has been changed into something so foreign to, and estranged from, its origins and meaning and purpose that it almost makes me cringe to participate in such a ceremony.

On a related note, my friend Scott Stocking has written an interesting essay for Greek and grammar geeks on his blog today on Acts 2:42 and the difference a comma can make: The Nature of “the Fellowship” (κοινωνία koinōnia) in Acts 2:42

The Woman Who Anointed Jesus - Comparing The Accounts

Before the prayer meeting Wednesday night (6/15/2011), we were discussing the incident where the woman anointed Jesus. The author of a book my friends had been reading identified this woman—described as “a sinner” in Luke's account—as the woman caught in adultery from John 7:53–8:11, even though the gospels themselves never make that connection.

I mentioned that the accounts vary among themselves at points, which can be a cause of confusion for some. So here for my friends’—and your—reading and comparison are the gospels’ accounts of that incident, partly color-coded to help point out similarities and differences.

Matthew 26:6–13 (NRSVue/Nestle-Aland 28)	Mark 14:3–9 (NRSVue/Nestle-Aland 28)
6 Now while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table. 8 But when the disciples saw it, they were angry and said, “Why this waste? 9 For this ointment could have been sold for a large sum and the money given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has performed a good service for me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. 12 By pouring this ointment on my body she has prepared me for burial. 13 Truly I tell you, wherever this good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.” 6 Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γενομένου ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ, 7 προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ γυνὴ ⸉ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου⸊ ⸀βαρυτίμου καὶ κατέχεεν ἐπὶ ⸂τῆς κεφαλῆς⸃ αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου. 8 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ ⸆ ἠγανάκτησαν λέγοντες· εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη; 9 ἐδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο ⸆ πραθῆναι πολλοῦ καὶ δοθῆναι ⸇ πτωχοῖς. 10 Γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τί κόπους παρέχετε τῇ γυναικί; ἔργον γὰρ καλὸν ἠργάσατο εἰς ἐμέ· 11 πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχοὺς ἔχετε μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε· 12 βαλοῦσα γὰρ αὕτη τὸ μύρον τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματός μου πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι με ἐποίησεν. 13 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅπου ἐὰν κηρυχθῇ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ, λαληθήσεται καὶ ὃ ἐποίησεν αὕτη εἰς μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς.	3 While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head. 4 But some were there who said to one another in anger, “Why was the ointment wasted in this way? 5 For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor.” And they scolded her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has performed a good service for me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish, but you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial. 9 Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.” 3 Καὶ ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ, κατακειμένου αὐτοῦ ἦλθεν γυνὴ ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου ⸋νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς⸌, ⸀συντρίψασα ⸁τὴν ἀλάβαστρον κατέχεεν ⸂αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς⸃. 4 ⸂ἦσαν δέ τινες ἀγανακτοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς⸃· εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη ⸋τοῦ μύρου⸌ γέγονεν; 5 ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ μύρον πραθῆναι ἐπάνω ⸉δηναρίων τριακοσίων⸊ καὶ δοθῆναι τοῖς πτωχοῖς· καὶ ⸀ἐνεβριμῶντο αὐτῇ. 6 Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἄφετε αὐτήν· τί αὐτῇ κόπους παρέχετε; καλὸν ἔργον ἠργάσατο ἐν ἐμοί. 7 πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχοὺς ἔχετε μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν καὶ ὅταν θέλητε δύνασθε ⸀αὐτοῖς εὖ ποιῆσαι, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε. 8 ὃ ἔσχεν ⸆ ἐποίησεν· προέλαβεν μυρίσαι ⸉τὸ σῶμά μου⸊ εἰς τὸν ἐνταφιασμόν. 9 ἀμὴν δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅπου ἐὰν κηρυχθῇ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ⸆ εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ὃ ἐποίησεν αὕτη λαληθήσεται εἰς μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς.
Luke 7:36–50 (NRSVue/Nestle-Aland 28)	John 12:1–8 (NRSVue/Nestle-Aland 28)
36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and when he went into the Pharisee’s house he reclined to dine. 37 And a woman in the city who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair, kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.” 40 Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Teacher,” he replied, “speak.” 41 “A certain moneylender had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.” And Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven loves little.” 48 Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” 50 But he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” 36 Ἠρώτα δέ τις αὐτὸν τῶν Φαρισαίων ἵνα φάγῃ μετʼ αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Φαρισαίου ⸀κατεκλίθη. 37 καὶ ἰδοὺ γυνὴ ⸂ἥτις ἦν ἐν τῇ πόλει⸃ ἁμαρτωλός, καὶ ἐπιγνοῦσα ὅτι κατάκειται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ Φαρισαίου, κομίσασα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου 38 καὶ στᾶσα ὀπίσω παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ κλαίουσα τοῖς δάκρυσιν ⸂ἤρξατο βρέχειν⸃ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς ⸀ἐξέμασσεν καὶ κατεφίλει τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤλειφεν τῷ μύρῳ. 39 ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Φαρισαῖος ⸂ὁ καλέσας αὐτὸν⸃ εἶπεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ λέγων· οὗτος εἰ ἦν ⸆ προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἂν τίς καὶ ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν. 40 Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν· Σίμων, ἔχω σοί τι εἰπεῖν. ὁ δέ· διδάσκαλε, εἰπέ, φησίν. 41 δύο χρεοφειλέται ἦσαν δανιστῇ τινι· ὁ εἷς ὤφειλεν δηνάρια πεντακόσια, ὁ δὲ ἕτερος πεντήκοντα. 42 μὴ ἐχόντων ⸆ αὐτῶν ἀποδοῦναι ἀμφοτέροις ἐχαρίσατο. τίς οὖν αὐτῶν ⸇ πλεῖον ἀγαπήσει ⸈αὐτόν; 43 ⸀ἀποκριθεὶς Σίμων εἶπεν· ὑπολαμβάνω ὅτι ᾧ τὸ πλεῖον ἐχαρίσατο. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὀρθῶς ἔκρινας. 44 καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα τῷ Σίμωνι ἔφη· βλέπεις ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα; εἰσῆλθόν σου εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, ὕδωρ ⸂μοι ἐπὶ πόδας⸃ οὐκ ἔδωκας· αὕτη δὲ τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἔβρεξέν μου τοὺς πόδας καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς ἐξέμαξεν. 45 φίλημά μοι οὐκ ἔδωκας· αὕτη δὲ ἀφʼ ἧς ⸀εἰσῆλθον οὐ ⸁διέλιπεν καταφιλοῦσά μου τοὺς πόδας. 46 ἐλαίῳ ⸂τὴν κεφαλήν⸃ μου οὐκ ἤλειψας· αὕτη δὲ μύρῳ ἤλειψεν ⸄τοὺς πόδας μου⸅. 47 οὗ χάριν˸ λέγω σοι, ἀφέωνται ⸂αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί⸃, ⸋ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ· ᾧ δὲ ὀλίγον ἀφίεται, ὀλίγον ἀγαπᾷ.⸌ 48 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῇ· ἀφέωνταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι. 49 Καὶ ἤρξαντο οἱ συνανακείμενοι λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς· τίς οὗτός ἐστιν ὃς καὶ ἁμαρτίας ἀφίησιν; 50 εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα· ⸆ ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε· πορεύου ⸂εἰς εἰρήνην⸃.	1 Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 2 There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” 6 (He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) 7 Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. 8 You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.” 1 Ὁ οὖν Ἰησοῦς πρὸ ⸀ἓξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα ἦλθεν εἰς Βηθανίαν, ὅπου ἦν Λάζαρος ⸆, ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν ⸁Ἰησοῦς. 2 ἐποίησαν οὖν αὐτῷ δεῖπνον ἐκεῖ, καὶ °ἡ Μάρθα διηκόνει, ὁ δὲ Λάζαρος εἷς ἦν °1ἐκ τῶν ἀνακειμένων σὺν αὐτῷ. 3 Ἡ οὖν ⸀Μαριὰμ λαβοῦσα λίτραν μύρου °νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτίμου ἤλειψεν τοὺς πόδας °1τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ· ἡ δὲ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ μύρου. 4 Λέγει ⸀δὲ ⸂Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης εἷς [ἐκ] τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ⸃, ὁ μέλλων αὐτὸν παραδιδόναι· 5 διὰ τί τοῦτο τὸ μύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη ⸀τριακοσίων δηναρίων καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς; 6 εἶπεν δὲ τοῦτο οὐχ ὅτι περὶ τῶν πτωχῶν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ, ἀλλʼ ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν καὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔχων τὰ βαλλόμενα ἐβάσταζεν. 7 εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἄφες αὐτήν, ⸀ἵνα εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ μου ⸁τηρήσῃ αὐτό· 8 ⸋τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε ἔχετε μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε.⸌

---

The painting is "St. Mary Magdalene" by Carlo (or Carlino) Dolci (May 25, 1616 – January 17, 1686). I chose it for illustrative purposes only, and because it doesn't show where the woman is or whether she is anointing Jesus' head or His feet. I am not suggesting that Mary Magdalene was the woman.

Was Eve Banished From Eden?

‮וַיִּקְרָ֧א הָֽאָדָ֛ם שֵׁ֥ם אִשְׁתֹּ֖ו חַוָּ֑ה כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כָּל־חָֽי׃

‮וַיַּעַשׂ֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים לְאָדָ֧ם‬ וּלְאִשְׁתֹּ֛ו כָּתְנֹ֥ות עֹ֖ור וַיַּלְבִּשֵֽׁם׃  

‮וַיֹּ֣אמֶר׀ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֗ים הֵ֤ן הָֽאָדָם֙ הָיָה֙ כְּאַחַ֣ד מִמֶּ֔נּוּ לָדַ֖עַת טֹ֣וב וָרָ֑ע וְעַתָּ֣ה׀ פֶּן־יִשְׁלַ֣ח יָדֹ֗ו וְלָקַח֙ גַּ֚ם מֵעֵ֣ץ הַֽחַיִּ֔ים וְאָכַ֖ל וָחַ֥י לְעֹלָֽם׃

‮וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵ֛הוּ יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים מִגַּן־עֵ֑דֶן לַֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֻקַּ֖ח מִשָּֽׁם׃

‮וַיְגָ֖רֶשׁ אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן֩‮ מִקֶּ֨דֶם לְגַן־עֵ֜דֶן‬ אֶת־הַכְּרֻבִ֗ים וְאֵ֨ת לַ֤הַט הַחֶ֨רֶב֙ הַמִּתְהַפֶּ֔כֶת לִשְׁמֹ֕ר אֶת־דֶּ֖רֶךְ עֵ֥ץ הַֽחַיִּֽים׃  

²⁰ Then the man—Adam—named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live. ²¹ And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife.
²² Then the LORD God said, "Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!" ²³ So the LORD God banished them from the Garden of Eden, and he sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made. ²⁴ After sending them out, the LORD God stationed mighty cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden. And he placed a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:20-24, NLT)

²⁰ The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living. ²¹ And the LORD God made garments of skins for the man and for his wife, and clothed them.
²² Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"— ²³ therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. ²⁴ He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:20-24, NRSV)

These two translations of Genesis 3:20–24 might seem pretty similar, but there is one striking difference that may be overlooked by many readers. Whereas the NLT reads:

²²..."Look, the human beings.... What if they reach out.... Then they...." ²³ So the LORD God banished them....²⁴ After sending them out....

the NRSV reads:

²²..."See, the man...; and now, he might reach out his hand... and live forever"— ²³ therefore the LORD God sent him forth.... ²⁴ He drove out the man...

The NRSV accurately represents the Hebrew in these verses, which uses the singular definite masculine noun הָאָדָם ha-adam ("the man/human being") with third-person singular masculine verbs ("he") and third-person singular masculine possessive suffixes ("his").

[NOTE: The NRSV should maybe translate לְאָדָם in 3:21 as "And the LORD God made garments of skins for Adam (not "for the man") and for his wife," since the Hebrew word is pointed as simply adam ("Adam") and not as ha-adam ("the man/human being").]

Also note that Genesis 3:23 NRSV reads:

²³ therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

Only the man was taken from the ground. The woman was taken from the man's side (whether as a rib or as a piece of his side or as both (see Umberto Cassuto)). This may also support that it was just the man/Adam who was banished from the Garden of Eden, and not the woman/Eve.

It's true that in Genesis 1:27–28 God speaks of the male and female human beings as the singular ha-adam, but there (unlike Genesis 3 above) it's used with plural verbs ("you"(pl.)/"they") and plural pronominal suffixes ("them"):

‮וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמֹ֔ו‮‬ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹתֹ֑ו זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃

‮וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְעֹ֣וף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם‮a‬ וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה‮‬ הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

So, who did God drive out from the Garden of Eden: both Adam and Eve, or just Adam?

And if it was just Adam who was banished, then why and when did Eve apparently join him?

"Rabbis and Fathers and Teachers! Oh, My!"

Chris Wright - Disciples First from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "...Don't let anyone call you 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters. And don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father,' for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father. And don't let anyone call you 'Teacher,' for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be a servant." (Mt 23:1,8–11, NLT)

Here is the original text:

Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν τοῖς ὄχλοις καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ λέγων·...ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ κληθῆτε· Ῥαββί, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε· καὶ πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος· μηδὲ κληθῆτε καθηγηταί, ὅτι καθηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἐστιν εἷς ὁ χριστός· ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος.

And here is my (improvable) translation:

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples and said: "...But as for you all: Don't have anyone¹ address² you as 'Rabbi,'³ for you all have One Teacher, and all of you are brothers and sisters.⁴ And don't call anyone¹ on earth your 'Father,'⁵ for you all have One Heavenly Father. Nor are you to be called 'Instructors,'⁶ because you all have One Instructor,⁶ The Christ.⁷ [Unlike these religious leaders⁸], the one who is the greatest among you must be⁹ as your servant."

¹ "anyone" is implied by the Greek.
² Or "call".
³ I.e., Master Teacher.
⁴ Translating the common-gender noun ἀδελφοί.
⁵ "Father" is emphasized in the Greek text, which is literally: "And 'Father' not you-should-call your on the earth...."
⁶ "Instructor(s)" is used to differentiate this word (καθηγητής) from the word that is translated in this passage as "teacher" (διδάσκαλος).
⁷ I.e., The Messiah.
⁸ See Matthew 23:2-7, which I omitted from the above excerpt: "The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden. Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra long tassels. And they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the seats of honor in the synagogues. They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi.'" (NLT)
⁹ Translating the future as an imperative as the NLT does. See BDF §362. (Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (183). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)

So You Want To Pastor A Large Church?

"You have heard that our ancestors were told, 'You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell. So if you are presenting a sacrifice at the altar in the Temple and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, leave your sacrifice there at the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God." Matthew 5:21-24 (NLT)

Whereas what Jesus first says here is about your responsibility not to get angry at other people or say derogatory things to them, the second part sets forth your obligation - yours, not theirs - to approach and seek reconciliation with or forgiveness from those who feel they've been wronged by you. And that before you proceed with your worship to God.

Did you get that?

If someone acts like or says (or you otherwise learn) that you've wronged them, or if they think that you've wronged them, you are to go to them and seek to be reconciled with them.

Before you do your God thing.

Before you preach your message.

Before you teach your Sunday school class or small group meeting.

Before you go to prayer or continue your prayer or lead others in prayer.

Can you guess how many people on a regular basis in a typical-sized church get offended by, or feel they've been wronged or offended by, the pastor(s) or others in leadership? Jesus doesn't say whether such people are right to feel that way, or whether you actually did anything, or whether if you did something, it was intentional or unintentional, or was done knowingly or unknowingly.

He says, "if...you suddenly remember that someone has something against you,..."

Past a certain size of church, I don't think a pastor or church leader would have any time to do anything but spend all her or his time making peace, or trying to make peace, with those who have been, or felt they've been, hurt or slighted or ignored or wronged by her or him.

Which is why, if one wants to do things Jesus' way, one would almost be constrained to keep one's list of possible offendees - and hence the size of one's congregation - fairly small.

Should We Call יהוה "(The) LORD"?

וַיֹּאמֶר עוֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה

כֹּה־תֹאמַר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

יהוה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק

וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם

זֶה־שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹּר׃

God, furthermore, said to Moses,
"Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,
'יהוה, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.'
This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations."
- Exodus 3:15 (NASB 1995)

וַיְדַבֵּר יהוה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃

דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל־בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר

כֹּה תְבָרֲכוּ אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אָמוֹר לָהֶם׃

יְבָרֶכְךָ יהוה וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ׃

יָאֵר יהוה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וִיחֻנֶּךָּ׃

יִשָּׂא יהוה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם׃

וְשָׂמוּ אֶת־שְׁמִי עַל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲנִי אֲבָרֲכֵם׃

Then יהוה spoke to Moses, saying,
"Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying,
'Thus you shall bless the sons of Israel. You shall say to them:
"יהוה bless you, and keep you;
יהוה make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you;
יהוה lift up His countenance on you, And give (שׂים) you peace."'
"So they shall invoke (שׂים) My name on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them."
- Numbers 6:22-27 (NASB 1995)

יהוה gave His people His name to know Him by, to remember Him by, and for them to be blessed by.

But instead of knowing and calling Him by His name, we often refer to Him by a title or a function: "(The) LORD."

While some people are insistent on using "Yahweh" or some other contrived or derived pronunciation of יהוה for God's name, it seems to me that we already pretty much use the word "God" as God's name.

And I wonder if we ought to be doing it more often.

For it seems to me that our frequent use or overuse of the term/title "(The) LORD" in conversation or prayer is probably mainly because we're so used to seeing and reading "The LORD" for the English translation of יהוה in our Bibles.

But when we say, "(The) LORD," we're not only not saying His name or even His title, but a translation of a title that was substituted for His name.

And that doesn't seem to be what יהוה wants His people to do.

---

There's also this from VanGemeren, W. (1998). Vol. 4: New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (NIDOTTE) (1296–1297). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House:

The “translation” LORD (capitalized in the RSV/NRSV/NIV) is something of a problem, from various perspectives. LORD obscures the fact that Yahweh is a name and not a title or an epithet. The use of LORD is based on the post-OT Jewish practice of reading אֲדֹנָי (Lord) for Yahweh, because of an increased sense of holiness associated with Yahweh, followed by the LXX’s κύριος (#3261). To facilitate this reading, the vowels for the Aram. word meaning “the Name” (which became synonymous with Yahweh in postbiblical Judaism) have been superimposed on the consonants for Yahweh in the Heb. text; or, these are the vowels for אֲדֹנָי, though the initial “a” vowel is not accounted for in this. With the phrase אֲדֹנָי יהוה (305×, Gen 15:2), the vowels of אֱלֹהִים are used with יהוה; in these cases, many translations (e.g., NRSV) use the phrase “Lord GOD” (implicitly recognizing that the meaning of יהוה is not Lord, otherwise the rendering would be “Lord LORD”). In view of this reality, it could be argued that, as with other personal names, we simply transliterate what the original Heb. was thought to be—Yahweh (this pronunciation is only an educated guess, constructed largely from early Christian references).

The transliteration of the present Heb. form, “Jehovah,” does not represent any known ancient pronunciation; such a form did emerge in the Middle Ages, however, and has had a hallowed usage in Christian hymnody (also in the ASV). An alternative would be to follow the NT practice of using “God.” This would also meet the concern of some that the word Lord brings into thousands of texts a masculine metaphor that is not present in the original Heb. (see “Yahweh,” ABD 6:1012).

3. What does the divine name-giving mean for Israel? Two extremes should be avoided. On the one hand, the import of a name is not a mere badge of identity; on the other hand, it does not belong to the sphere of magic, as if by knowing or pronouncing the name one has control over the deity. The oft-cited Gen 32:29, where Jacob’s request for the name of his assailant is not granted, is not pertinent here, for God had already given Jacob his name in 28:13.

Divine name-giving entails several dimensions. It entails distinctiveness; it sets God off from others who have names, incl. gods. Moreover, anyone whose name is known becomes a part of the community that has names; God thereby chooses to join the historical community. Even more, to give the name Yahweh with reference to the God of the fathers ties this God to a certain history. God’s own history is thus integrated with the history of this people, and in this text God makes a commitment to be a part of the history of Israel.

Furthermore, giving the name entails a certain kind of relationship; it opens up the possibility of, indeed admits a desire for, a certain intimacy in relationship. A relationship without a name inevitably means some distance; naming the name is necessary for closeness. Naming makes true communication and encounter possible. Naming entails availability. By giving the name, God becomes accessible. God and people can now meet and address each other. Yet, because name is not person or identity or character (an oft-repeated mistake), there remains an otherness, even a mystery about the one who is named.

Naming also entails vulnerability. In becoming so available to the world, God is to some degree at the disposal of those who can name the name. God’s name may be misused and abused as well as honored. For God to give the name is to open himself up to hurt. Naming entails the likelihood of divine suffering (cf. Exod 3:7). This is probably a factor that undergirds the giving of the commandment regarding the name of God (Exod 20:7). On the above, see T. Fretheim, Exodus, 63–65.

Some background from Alexander, T. D., & Baker, D. W. (2003). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (364–365). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.:

When fear of misusing God’s name, Yahweh (cf. Ex 20:7; Deut 5:11), arose at the end of the pre-Christian era, it was replaced by ʾădōnay, which became for all practical purposes a proper noun (cf. Mettinger, 15–19). Some suggest that the actual Masoretic Text (MT) was changed in light of this practice, substituting one for the other (Baudissin, 1.559, 2.81–96; Eichrodt, 1.204), but this does not appear likely, since both ʾădōnay and Yahweh remain in the numerous verses mentioned (cf. Jenni 1997b, 1.28). This phenomenon is evident in the MT, however, where the Tetragrammaton, which should not be pronounced lest it be profaned, is revocalized. Sometimes it is to be read as ʾădōnay, with this word’s vowels appended to the consonants yhwh (i.e., yĕh[ō]wāh, from which we get “Jehovah” through the more archaic English pronunciation of the letters; e.g., Gen 2:4; Yeivin, 58–59). At times it revocalized as yĕh[ō]wih with the vowels from ʾĕlōhîm (e.g., Gen 15:2, 8). This practice of substitution carries over into the Septuagint, where yhwh is routinely rendered by kyrios (“lord”), a practice carried on in the NT (e.g., Mt 4:7, quoting Deut 6:16). This continues in most contemporary English translations (except for the Jerusalem Bible), where yhwh is rendered LORD.