Wednesday, 30 December 2020

Death By Suspension in the Bible

Hanging by the neck as a mode of execution can be traced as far back as Homer’s 8th-century-BC epic poem the Odyssey (Book 22), but not commonplace until the Middle Ages. In the biblical record this method of ending one’s life was more likely to be suicide (2 Sam. 17:23; Matt. 27:5), while executions involving bodily suspension were typically impalement or crucifixion. 

According to Jewish law, if a man is hanged on a tree (whether affixed by ropes or nails?) after his execution (by whatever means), his body was not to be left hanging overnight (Deut. 21:22-23). This seems to address the humiliation or desecration of a corpse rather than the mode of execution (cf. Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12). 


As for the ancient Egyptians, Genesis 40:19 apparently refers to exposing the dead body on a tree after beheading. The hangings in the book of Esther (2:23; 5:14; 7:9, 10; 9:13-14) probably refer to the Persian practice of impaling or crucifying. The Hebrew עֵץ [ets], rendered “gallows” (CSB, ESV, N/ASV, N/KJV, N/RSV) or “pole” (NIV), simply means “tree” or “wood.”


When Jesus was hanged on a tree (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24), he was in fact crucified (Matt. 20:19; 23:34; 26:2; 27:22-44; 28:5; Mark 15:13-32; 16:6; Luke 23:21, 23, 33; 24:7, 20; John 19:6-41; Acts 2:23, 36; 4:10). Although the particular shape of the apparatus upon which he died is not specified in scripture (the English word “cross” is rendered from the less descriptive Greek term staurós), early ecclesiastical writers unanimously describe it as an upright post with a crossbeam (e.g. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 15; cf. Epistle of Barnabas 9.7-8). 


--Kevin L. Moore


Related Posts: The Christianization of a Pagan Symbol 

 

Image credit: https://depositphotos.com/stock-photos/noose.html

Wednesday, 23 December 2020

And It Was Night …

In the setting of his final Passover meal, which he shared with twelve friends who had been his closest companions on earth, Jesus instituted the sacred memorial of his impending death and washed their dirty feet. Aware of the treacherous intent of one of these men, Jesus was “troubled in spirit” (John 13:21). Judas Iscariot, who was sitting close enough to receive a piece of bread from his hand, exited the room to carry out his dastardly plan of betrayal. Although this scene is reported by all four Gospel writers, it is only John who adds, “And it was night” (13:30).1

While indicative of an eyewitness account, this brief observation seems to add very little to the storyline unless there is an underlying message John is trying to convey. In John’s Gospel there are multiple references to “night” as a time reference (3:2; 19:39; 21:3; cf. 6:17; 20:1), so we should be careful about reading too much into the text. However, the same Gospel places much emphasis on the notable contrast between spiritual “light” and spiritual “darkness” (1:4-9; 3:19-21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36, 46), including the metaphoric sense of “night” (9:4; 11:9-10). 


Perhaps as a deeper meaning of the current text, Judas has made room in his heart for the evil influence of Satan (13:2, 27), essentially trading the light of the world for the world of darkness. Could there have been a darker period in his life as he entered the night, turning his back on the Lord to sell him out for meager monetary gain? As a result Judas misses out on the instruction, the promises, and the blessings of John 13:31–16:33 and beyond.


Never lose sight of what we gain in Christ and forfeit if we follow Judas’s path. Paul reminds us: “giving thanks to the Father, the one having qualified you for the share of the inheritance of those set apart in the light, who has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:12-14). What a tragedy when the final chapter of one’s life reads, “And it was night.”


--Kevin L. Moore


Endnote:

     1 Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.


*Appearing in The Estes Echo (weekly bulletin of the Estes Church of Christ) 16 Oct. 2020.


Related Posts: Love One Another 

 

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?q=night&safe=off&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS780US780&sxsrf=ALeKk02KSTQhOgWYZkxaPHiC0xV1_yUv2g:1601133100889&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBt93NjYfsAhUKu54KHWjwBcwQ_AUoAXoECCwQAw&biw=1273&bih=649#imgrc=jPk2JrEPjTaH5M

Wednesday, 16 December 2020

Call No One on Earth “Father” (Matthew 23:9)?


Jesus says, “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” (Matt. 23:9, NKJV). In the context of Matthew 23 Jesus is rebuking the Jewish scribes (recognized scholars) and Pharisees of his day for their hypocrisy and prideful arrogance. Among other things they loved to be honored with lofty titles (vv. 5-10). 

 

The English word “father” in this passage is rendered from Matthew’s Greek translation of the Aramaic term in Jesus’s verbal rebuke. The Lord is not denouncing this word as a reference to one’s male parent (see Matt. 15:4-6; 19:29; 21:31). 

 

Paul later applies the basic meaning of the word metaphorically to himself (1 Cor. 4:15), not as a religious title but as a descriptive term, seeing that he had “begotten” these Christian converts through the gospel, comparable to other metaphors used in the same epistle (1 Cor. 3:5, 6, 10; etc.). Elsewhere Paul applies the honorific use of the designation only to God the Father (1 Cor. 1:3; 8:6; 15:24).

 

What Jesus condemns is the misappropriation of the word “father” as a religious title of veneration for prideful men, the application of which ought to be reserved for the heavenly Father.  

 

--Kevin Moore

 

Related PostsJewish Subgroups

 

Image credit: https://devotiontoourlady.com/pharisees.html 

Wednesday, 9 December 2020

Baptism into Moses, the Rock was Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

In the 10th chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul points to the examples of ancient Israel to illustrate that privileged status does not guarantee acceptance with God. He writes, “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:1-4 ESV). 

Biblical typology employs physical, earthly symbolism to represent a greater spiritual truth. Moses is a “type” of Christ (cf. Deut. 18:15-19; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37), in that Christ now fulfils in a much greater way what Moses was and did in the past, i.e., leader of God’s people, covenant facilitator, lawgiver, and mediator. The Israelites were “baptized into Moses” as they were encompassed by water, crossing through the divided walls of the Red Sea and under the cloud (cf. Ex. 14:1-31). On the other side was deliverance as the wicked pursuers were swept away, corresponding to baptism into Christ that takes a penitent believer from the bondage of sin to spiritual salvation (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:35-39; 10:47-48; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:20-21).


When Paul says, “they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them,” he is using familiar symbolism alluding to God and his providential care (cf. Deut. 32:15, 18; Psa. 18:2; 95:1; Isa. 17:10). Provision (water) from the desert rock was ultimately from God (“the Rock”), not directly supplied by the physical rock itself (Ex. 17:5-6). The food and drink were “spiritual,” not in composition but with reference to the heavenly source. Paul is not saying that Jesus was a literal stone or bolder rolling behind the Israelites, but he was “the Rock” in the sense of divine protector and provider. Applying this metaphor to Christ affirms his pre-existence, divine nature, and active role in the history of God’s people.  


--Kevin L. Moore

 

Related Posts:

 

Image credit: painting by Ellie Leonard (2019) https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/local/2019/01/22/fhu-hosting-lectureship-focusing-exodus/2616228002/

Wednesday, 2 December 2020

Jesus’s Alleged Deception

In John 7:8-10 did Jesus mislead his brothers, or simply change his mind, or is there something about the account we might be missing? The greatest challenge in our attempts to understand this passage is the ambiguity of what it actually says due to variant readings among the Greek manuscripts. 

Contextually in the 7th chapter of John’s Gospel, Jesus and his disciples are in Galilee as the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles draws near, and the Lord’s unbelieving brothers tell him to go ahead and make the pilgrimage to Judea. His verbal response, in part, is recorded in v. 8, followed by a report of his seemingly capricious actions in v. 10.

The ESV reads: “‘You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come’ …. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.” 


The NKJV reads: “‘You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come’ …. But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.”


The Textual Issue


The first ambiguity is created in v. 8 by the presence in some manuscripts of the adverb οὐκ (“not”),1 whereas in others οὔπω (“not yet”) occurs.2 If the former reading is correct, why did Jesus say he was not going to the feast but then he went? If the latter reading is correct, it was just a matter of timing (a delayed departure), but how is the more difficult variant to be explained? If the scribal amendment was intentional, it makes no sense to replace a fairly harmonious reading with an apparent discrepancy.


The other ambiguity is created in v. 10 with the positioning of the phrase, “up to the feast.” In some manuscripts this is descriptive of the Lord’s brothers, while in others it applies to Jesus. If the former reading is correct (as in the ESV), then Jesus simply went up to Jerusalem but not necessarily to the feast in which his brothers were participating. If the latter reading is correct (as in the NKJV), then Jesus did attend the feast, albeit later and in a different manner than his brothers expected.


Tackling the Textual Issue


The problem for text critics, translators, and exegetes is weighing the external documentary evidence against the internal evidence, while trying to account for textual variation in the transmission process. If each of these factors is granted equal value, we seem to be at an impasse.  


Reasoned transmissionalism considers both internal and external information, giving more weight to the documentary evidence. The earliest extant confirmation (closest in time to the original) supports the reading οὔπω (“not yet”) in John 7:8. Documents inclusive of this version of the text, dating back as early as the 2nd century,have been recognized as the “best witnesses.”4


Reasoned eclecticism considers both internal and external information,5 giving more weight to internal evidence. Proponents of this approach regard the reading οὔπω to have been “introduced at an early date … in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10.”6 Leon Morris, for example, reasons, “If the original read οὔπω, why should anyone alter it to οὐκ? I cannot find any convincing answer, so I incline to the reading οὐκ.7 Philip Comfort adds further, “the variant [οὐκ] is the more difficult reading (Jesus eventually went to this festival) and therefore a candidate for being the original wording.”8


In seeking to trace the transmissional history of any textual variant, of paramount concern is which reading best explains the existence of the others. Preference is usually given to the more difficult reading, the assumption being that copyists would ordinarily prefer smoothness, harmony, and clarity over a presumed inconsistency and have little to no apprehension about altering the biblical text. It further assumes the changes were on purpose, even though unintentional scribal error was all too common. 


There is no solid consensus among NT scholars as to what was first penned and subsequently changed in John’s text. Since the manuscript evidence can be more objectively scrutinized than the somewhat subjective evaluation of internal issues, I tend to lean in favor of the οὔπω (“not yet”) reading in John 7:8. At the same time, however, I struggle to come up with a reasonable explanation for the scribal change to οὐκ unless it was accidental rather than determined (i.e., confusion of letters in the uncial script). Perhaps the best exegetical approach is to consider the question from all angles and find a solution that is consistent with what we know about the integrity of Christ and the biblical record. 


A Parabolic Play on Words?


It has been suggested that the tension between vv. 8 and 10 of John 7 is simply one of multiple occasions in John’s Gospel of two levels of meaning.9 Thus the words, “not going up to this feast” (v. 8), were intended parabolically rather than literally. The Lord’s brothers, as earthly-minded unbelievers, may have inferred the uphill climb toward Jerusalem, but since Jesus did in fact make the journey in v. 10, this is not what he meant in v. 8. The real meaning, as the argument goes, concerns the timing of his death, resurrection, and subsequent return to heaven (vv. 1-8, 19, 25, 33-34). In other words, it was not going to happen at the upcoming Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 30, 44; cf. 8:59). As a play on words, the “going up” in v. 8 is a veiled allusion to his ascension to the Father (cf. 3:13; 6:62; 20:17), perhaps even including his elevation on the cross (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). 


As insightful and creative as this explanation is, however, it does not readily correspond to the actual wording of the text. Jesus’s reference to “going up,” whether parabolically or topographically, was not “at” or “during” the feast but εἰς (“to,” “unto,” “toward”) the feast. It would be less of a stretch, granting the words “not yet” and “this feast,” to take the Lord’s statement as anticipatory of “the next paschal journey,” when “the time was fulfilled.”10   


Operating on His Own Timetable?


If the original text of John 7:8-10 included “not yet” and “he went up to the feast,” there is no inconsistency between Christ’s words and actions. He intentionally delayed his departure from Galilee because of impending dangers (vv. 1, 6-9), arriving in Jerusalem by “the middle of the feast” (v. 14). The harmony of the text supported by the weight of manuscript evidence makes a solid case for this interpretation. The only nagging concern, then, is how to account for the textual variant.   


Did Not Necessarily Attend the Feast?


The prepositional phrase “to the feast” in v.10 has been mispositioned in a number of manuscripts. If the biblical record states, “his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up,” Jesus made his way to the city of Jerusalem but not to engage in the festivities. This is consistent with what he told his brothers in v. 8, particularly if οὐκ is the original wording. 


The Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths) started on the 15th day of the 7th month (Tishri = September/October), lasted seven days, and officially ended on the 8th day (Lev. 23:34-36). John reports that Jesus was in Jerusalem “about the middle of the feast” (John 7:14), as well as “the last day” (v. 37), presumably having missed the first few days. While others were celebrating, Jesus was about his Father’s business, teaching in the temple, and avoiding a premature death (John 7:10–8:59). Even if credence is given to the textual variant, “he went up to the feast,” he apparently did not go up as one who kept the feast.11


Conclusion


This is one of those passages I wish was more straightforward than it actually is. Nonetheless, any alleged incongruity is easily resolved, albeit with multiple possibilities. The primary concern, at least for Bible believers, is that the integrity of our Lord and the biblical record remains intact. 


--Kevin L. Moore


Endnotes:

     1 This is the reading of the standard text of NA28 and UBS5. See ASV, ESV, H/CSB, NASB, NET, NIV(2011), N/RSV.

     2 This is the reading of the Byzantine Majority Text and Textus ReceptusSee ERV, N/KJV, NIV(1978), WBT, WEB, YLT. Despite the English translation in more recent editions, the NT text upon which the NIV was originally based favors οὔπω (see R. J. Goodrich and A. L. Lukaszewski, A Reader’s Greek New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003]: 221).

     3 In addition to the 2nd-century Bodmer papyri P66 and P75, the following also support the οὔπω reading: codices Vaticanus (B), Borgianus (T), Washingtonianus (W), as well as L X Γ Δ Λ Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 f113 Maj syrh,p copsa,ac2.

     4 Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), AB (NY: Doubleday, 1966): 307. See K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT: Study and Lecture Notes (Henderson, TN: Hester, 2006): 26-32. Proponents of the more extreme historical-documentary eclecticism would rely almost exclusively on the external textual evidence.

     5 The οὐκ reading is supported by the 4th and 5th century codices Sinaiticus (א) and Bezae (D), as well as K M Π it syrc,s copbo. Based on this reading, Porphyry of Tyre (ca. 234-305) accused Jesus of vacillation.

     6 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994): 185. Advocates of the more extreme thoroughgoing or rigorous eclecticism rely almost exclusively on the internal evidence.

     7 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Rev. ed. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995): 354 n. 21.

     8 Philip Wesley Comfort, A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2015): 257.

     9 See R. Brown, op. cit. 308; R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957): 175-76.

     10 B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (London: James Clarke, 1958): 117; also F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877): II: 270-72. Another textual variant is the dual usage of the pronoun ταύτην (“this” feast) in the Byzantine Majority Text, supported by א* Γ Δ Λ, along with eight uncials, numerous miniscules, and some ancient versions, whereas a lone appearance in NA28 and UBS5, based on א a b B D K L T X Π, along with a number of minuscules and quotations.

     11 B. F. Westcott, op cit. 117. J. H. Bernard offers as a possibility that Jesus merely altered his plans (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1953]: I:270).

 

Related Posts: Interpretive Ambiguities, John 5:3-4John 7:53-8:11  

 

Image credit: adapted from http://www.ngkfgcs.com/Blog/November-2018/Stay-vs-Go-6-HQ-Location-Strategy-Trigger-Factors

 

Wednesday, 25 November 2020

Why Did My Savior Come to Earth?

In 1892 James G. Dailey, Sr. published a hymn entitled, “Why Did My Savior Come to Earth?” Each stanza and refrain repeatedly answers, “Because He loved me so.” While acknowledging the hymn’s beauty and soul-stirring effect, technically this is not a biblical answer. Scripture clearly affirms God’s love for us,1 but whenever we read of our Savior Jesus Christ’s love, the emphasis is on what he did while living on earth rather than the express purpose of his coming.2

If we allow the Lord himself, in his own recorded words and through his inspired agents, to answer the “why” of his coming, here is what we learn: 

·      To fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17).

·      To proclaim God’s kingdom (Luke 4:43).

·      To call sinners to repentance (Luke 5:32).

·      To seek and save lost sinners (Luke 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:15).

·      To bring conflict among the noncompliant (Matt. 10:34-38).

·      For judgment, giving spiritual sight to the receptive and blindness to the resistant self-reliant (John 9:39).

·      To provide the abundant life (John 10:10). 

·      To serve others, giving his life a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45).

·      To suffer and die (John 12:27); to taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9).

·      To destroy the works of the devil and the power of death (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8).

·      To release the captives of sin (Heb. 2:15).

·      To be a merciful and faithful high priest, make atonement/appeasement for sins, and help those who struggle with temptation (Heb. 2:17-18).


While Dailey’s hymn reminds us of the motivating power of Christ’s love (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14a), when biblically defined love is so much more than an emotionally stirring prompter. The life and teachings of our Savior demonstrate that genuine love is always active and outwardly focused, having the recipients’ best interests at heart. Why did my Savior come to earth? The Bible provides a number of reasons, but maybe love is the best single-word summation of them all.


--Kevin L. Moore


Endnotes:

     1 John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:4; 1 John 3:1; 4:9-11, 19.

     2 Mark 10:21; John 11:3, 5, 36; 13:1, 23, 34; 15:9, 12, 13; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20; Rom. 8:35, 37; 2 Cor. 5:14; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 3:19; 5:2, 25; 1 John 3:16; Rev. 3:9; also John 14:21 with reference to what he will do.

 

Related PostsWhen God is Able But Not Willing

 

Image credit: https://studyprayserve.com/2019/02/23/daily-mass-transfigured-glory-before-the-cross-of-christ-catholic-inspiration/

Tuesday, 17 November 2020

When God is Able But Not Willing (Isaiah 59:1-2)

About seven centuries before Christ, Assyria was rising as a world power hostile to God’s covenant people, who had shamefully divided into two dysfunctional kingdoms, each drifting farther and farther away from the Lord’s standard of righteousness. During this period Isaiah the son of Amoz is called to be God’s spokesman. Along with a message of messianic hope for the future, he issues warnings of impending judgment against Israel and Judah, as well as surrounding nations.

In the 1st verse of the 59th chapter Isaiah announces: “Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, That it cannot save; Nor His ear heavy, That it cannot hear” (NKJV, emp. added). God’s lack of response to the cries of his people and refusal to deliver them from their oppressive enemies has nothing to do with whether or not he is capable. He is neither powerless nor indifferent. But there is something keeping him at bay. The next verse reads: “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear.” 


The English word “hear” in this text is translated from the Hebrew שָׁמַע [shema],

with nuances including hear, listen, understand, heed, and hearken unto. The Jewish confessional prayer, known simply as the Shema, declares: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Deut. 6:4). This speaks of a receptive and responsive hearing.


God is omniscient. He sees, hears, and knows all things. However, for those who are unreceptive and disobedient, he will not hear responsively, i.e., he will not hearken unto their pleas. It is not because he does not care. It is not due to a lack of love. “For God so loved the world …” (John 3:16a); “But God demonstrates his own love toward us …” (Rom. 5:8); “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us” (Eph. 2:4). 


Why, then, does God allow this separation from those he loves? Why does he close his ears to their calls? Could it be because of his holiness? As Habakkuk observes, concerning God, “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, And cannot look on wickedness” (Hab. 1:13a). God is so holy and infinitely pure, he can have no close association with that which is sinful. His very nature demands this separation.


But God still loves us anyway. “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation” (Rom. 5:6-11).


Sin separates. The love of God through Christ reconciles. When we are not as close to the Lord as we would like to be or ought to be or used to be, he is not the one who has moved (Heb. 13:5). Although God is able to do extraordinary things, he will not hear and he will not save when his just and holy nature does not allow it.


The good news is, we do not have to be estranged from God because of our sins. He offers forgiveness and reconciliation through Christ. As penitent believers we can have our sins washed away by Christ’s blood in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). If your sins are causing a separation between you and God, take advantage of his gracious offer of forgiveness and reconciliation.


--Kevin L. Moore


* FHU chapel talk 19 Oct. 2020

 

Related PostsDoes God hear a sinners prayer?

 

Image credit: Tran Tuan Viet’s photo of Vietnam’s “Golden Bridge,” https://e.vnexpress.net/news/travel/places/golden-bridge-shot-wins-top-architecture-photo-prize-for-vietnam-4093088.html

Tuesday, 10 November 2020

Beyond Words

How does one go about describing God, explaining God, or even fathoming his nature and works? Many reject the reality of God’s existence because the very concept is so foreign to our human experience and self-perception. But that’s the point. If he could be conceptualized on the human level, he wouldn’t be God! His ways and thoughts are infinitely higher than ours (Isa. 55:9). His depths are so vast (1 Cor. 2:10), mere words are inexpressible (2 Cor. 12:4) and amount to inarticulate groanings (Rom. 8:26).1 The vocabulary of all human languages combined does not have sufficient words through which the Most High can fully reveal himself. 

Due to the limitations and inadequacies of human speech and thought, the transcendent LORD and his direct activity cannot be verbalized literally. Divine revelation therefore has to employ analogy, metaphor, personification, anthropomorphism, hyperbole, and other figures of speech (e.g. Isa. 6:1-7; Ezek. 1:3-28; et al.). With valiant attempts to accommodate our limited capacity to understand, biblical authors, even inspired by God’s Spirit, seem to struggle to put into meaningful words that which is inexplicable and indescribable.

·      “O the immensity of abundance, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments and incomprehensible his ways!” (Rom. 11:33).

·      “But to the One having power above all things to do exceedingly beyond what we ask or think, according to the power working in us” (Eph. 3:20).

·      “But we have this treasure in clay containers, that the surpassing excellence of the power might be of God and not from us” (2 Cor. 4:7).

·      “Thanks to God for his indescribable gift” (2 Cor. 9:15).

·      “For the momentary lightness of our affliction, according to excessive excellence unto excessive excellence,2 is producing for us an eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:17).

·      “For God so [emphatically] loved …” (John 3:16a). 

·      “But God being rich in mercy, through his abundant love with which he loved us” (Eph. 2:4).

·      “How will we escape, having neglected so great a salvation …” (Heb. 2:3a).

·      “Wherefore also he has the power to save to the uttermost …” (Heb. 7:25a).

·      Much more then having now been justified by his blood …. much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:9a-10).

·      “I came that they may have life, and may have it exceedingly” (John 10:10b).

·      “But in all these things, we more than conquer through the One having loved us” (Rom. 8:37).


How do you explain? How do you describe? The ancient psalmist has observed, “Yahweh our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth, Who has set your majesty above the heavens” (Psalm 8:1). In more recent times we lift our voices and sing, “You are beautiful beyond description, too marvelous for words; too wonderful for comprehension …. I stand in awe of You.”3

 

We basically have to resort to feeble expressions like boundless, infinite, unsearchable, unfathomable, inexplicable, indescribable, and incomprehensible, realizing that words alone are insufficient. God therefore has stooped down to our level and communicates not only with our words but beyond our words through the Word who took on human flesh (John 1:1, 14, 18; Heb. 1:1-2).

 

--Kevin L. Moore

 
Endnotes:
     1 Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. Emphasis added with italics; added words in [square brackets].
     2 The inexpressible magnitude of what lies beyond this temporal life is so hard to put into words that the Greek term ὑπερβολή [huperbolé], from which the English word “hyperbole” is derived, is employed twice as a feeble attempt to make the point: ASV, “more and more exceedingly”; CSB, “absolutely incomparable”; ISV/NASB, “far beyond any/all comparison”; NIV, “far outweighs them all”; N/KJV, “far more exceeding.”
     3 “Beautiful Beyond Description,” by Mark Altrogge (1987).
 
*Appearing in modified form in The Estes Echo (6 Nov. 2020).

Image credit: http://openuniverse.asi.it/