Paul begins his letter to the Romans by introducing himself: Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, a called apostle set apart for the gospel of God ….”

One would think that this would be a rather difficult verse to misinterpret, but nearly anything is possible in biblical interpretation. In this case (as in many), archaic translation bears the brunt of the blame, as several translations render the Greek word for “slave” (δούλος, doulos) as “bondslave,” “bondservant,” or similar form that has fallen out of common use. In order to explain the unusual word, folks who don’t really know the original languages explained this difference by looking back to Exodus 21:6, which lays out the procedure for a debt slave to become a life-long slave (a decision presumably tied to a good master or perhaps a wife given to him by the master while under debt slavery), sealed by the piercing of the ear with an awl.

Anyway, the teaching in question basically explains that Paul wasn’t just a regular slave, that his use of the term “bondslave” (rather than “slave” or “servant”) refers to the voluntary slavery of Exodus 21, highlighting Paul’s piety or underscoring some difference between these concepts. The problem is that this notion results from those who not only don’t know the original languages but also don’t really know these somewhat archaic English words. Etymologically, “bond-servant” is used to distinguish a purchased slave who is owned by (bound to) his master from a servant who is simply hired help but is free to go elsewhere. Essentially, “bond-servant” means “slave,” in distinction from “servant”; another equivalent term often used before the 20th Century was “bondman” (i.e. “bound man” or “man of bondage”), which is what the Darby translation uses.

“Bond-slave” arises from the same origin and is a direct (albeit emphatic) synonym to “slave,” again meaning an owned or purchased slave, one bound to a master as opposed to a free person. These words aren’t used today outside of Christianese, which lends them to easier misunderstanding. The translations that use “bond-servant” are actually trying to distance themselves from the KJV, which simply uses “servant,” which isn’t really the right word to translate δοὐλος today, since “servant” in modern English implies a free person in distinction from a slave bound to an owner. But many translations are a bit twitchy about using the word “slave” in these cases due to the extremely negative connotation attached to this word today (thanks to our history of race-based slavery). Thus, some 20th Century translations elected to go with the somewhat archaic but more precise “bondservant” (NKJV & NASB) or “bondslave” (again the NASB, which isn’t consistent w/its rendering of this word).

This led to the fanciful interpretations going back to the “voluntary” slave of Exodus 21, explaining that this is why Paul would call himself a “bondslave” as opposed to just a “servant” or “slave.” Of course, it’s all completely wrong. Paul simply uses the basic Greek word for “slave.” There’s no inherent notion of volunteerism in this word—it’s the same word that was used for a slave that was purchased at a slave market or from another owner—nor is this a unique word, as the archaic translation “bondslave” might suggest. Rather, Paul merely uses the basic word for a person who is owned by another person.

For that matter, Exodus 21 doesn’t support this change in terms, either. The Hebrew word in the passage doesn’t change—the man is a “slave” (עבד) before his ear is pierced, and he serves (עבד) after his ear is pierced. Same word. If one wants to point out a difference, it is between a debt-slave in the first instance—an Israelite debt-slave could only be held for seven years—and a “slave” or “bond-slave” (that is, an owned slave, one in bondage—a much more severe state) in the latter state. “Bond-slavery” is the more severe enslavement—a permanent one in which one is owned as property, as opposed to debt-slavery, which was to be limited in its timeframe. Either way, by Paul’s day, the debt slavery outlined in Exodus 21 (and the practice of voluntary slavery) had long ceased; in his introduction, Paul was straightforwardly using the standard word for “slave.” It is extremely far-fetched to think of this as an intentional reference to Exodus 21, and it’s even more unlikely that his audience (who were accustomed to hearing δούλος in everyday speech) would have connected Paul’s self-identification as a slave to ancient Israelite slavery regulations.

There’s no question that Paul’s application of δοὐλος to himself indicates his being “bound for life” to serve God, and he uses the word denoting the most servile state one could have in the Graeco-Roman world: “slave.” But the point is better preserved by applying the modern form of the word in the passage, and any attempt to find something “special” about this particular word (beyond its indication of being owned and in a servile state) goes beyond the evidence of the text. It really does just say: “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus.”

Related posts:

1. “That day will come like a thief”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #4
2. “Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1
3. “Judge not, lest you be judged”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #3

It’s been awhile since the last installment of this series (lots more to come), but this one should be fairly straightforward. 2 Kings 2:23–24 tells of the prophet Elisha calling a curse down upon a group of “children” (KJV), “youths” (NIV), “boys,” (NRSV/ESV), or “lads” (NASB), resulting in two bears (she-bears, if you must) mauling forty two of them. Here’s the passage:

‏וַיַּעַל מִשָּׁם בֵּית־אֵל וְהוּא עֹלֶה בַדֶּרֶךְ וּנְעָרִים קְטַנִּים יָצְאוּ מִן־הָעִיר וַיִּתְקַלְּסוּ־בוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ עֲלֵה קֵרֵחַ עֲלֵה קֵרֵחַ׃
‎‏ וַיִּפֶן אַחֲרָיו וַיִּרְאֵם וַיְקַלְלֵם בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה וַתֵּצֶאנָה שְׁתַּיִם דֻּבִּים מִן־הַיַּעַר וַתְּבַקַּעְנָה מֵהֶם אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנֵי יְלָדִים׃

“And [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel. While he was on his way, young juveniles* came out from the city and mocked him, saying, ‘Go up, bald-head! Go up, bald-head!’ When he turned back and saw them, he cursed them in the name of YHWH. Then two female bears came out from the forest and mauled forty two of those juveniles.”

* The Hebrew word underlying what I have translated “juveniles” is notoriously difficult to translate in this context. The word can mean “child,” “servant,” “young man,” or several other possibilities, depending on the context. For example, it is used of the “young man” Absalom (1 Sam 18:5) and a group of 400 Amalekite warriors 1 Sam 30:17. The generally agreed meaning is that it is used of a young man (& can include females in the plural) who is not yet betrothed, setting the range from a mere boy to a young warrior. This passage uses the additional adjective “little” or “young” in the first case, which may tilt the meaning more towards the “children” end of the spectrum, but it’s certainly not clear. I’ve chosen the somewhat clunky “juveniles” to reflect this range, though the translation is admittedly less than ideal.

A Difficult Passage

This passage has disturbed many a reader, bringing up the question of how a prophet of YHWH could call a deadly curse down upon a group of kids for taunting him about something as insignificant as baldness. The following video is an outstanding (and, frankly, hilarious) example of this sort of misgiving (WARNING: a couple bits of language might be offensive for some):

The video actually depicts the “youths” at the older end of the spectrum (given younger kids, it would look even worse), but the basic sentiment is still there: as one of the video characters declares, “this seems like a disproportionate response” to insulting Elisha’s lack of hair.

Are Bald People Just Temperamental?

The first thing to dismiss is that this was an older man who reacted badly to taunts about his male pattern balding. According to 2 Kings, this event immediately followed Elisha taking over for Elijah; Elisha was still quite a young man at this point in the story, living about 60 years after this event (through the reigns of four more kings and into a fifth’s reign: Ahaziah, Joram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, & Jehoash/Joash). He wasn’t exactly an old monk as portrayed in the video, probably coming closer to the age of the older “children” in the group taunting him than to their parents. As an aside, given Elisha’s young age (and the possibility that his head would have been covered anyway), it isn’t clear the reference is to male-pattern baldness. It is just as likely that (were he actually bald) that his baldness was the result of the fulfillment of a vow before YHWH (which would make sense in the time immediately following Elijah’s departure). Some have also suggested that “baldy” was a reference to lepers or other outcasts who had to shave their heads. Either way, the baldness referenced in the passage is neither clear nor is it especially important.

Secondly, the emphasis in the passage isn’t Elisha’s baldness or that the juveniles bring it up—it’s that the youth of Bethel reject and scorn YHWH’s prophet (signaling a rejection of God himself). The problem is that, rather than receiving the prophet, they tell him to “go up”—the exact word (עלה) used to describe Elijah’s departure to heaven twelve verses earlier. That is, they tell him to stay away, that they wanted nothing to do with him or his God, that he should go join Elijah in heaven if he was really such a powerful prophet. That they call him “baldy,” though certainly disrespectful, was not the cause of the cursing.

On that front, it is not insignificant that this event happens just outside Bethel, one of the two state-sponsored centers of idolatry (Dan being the other), complete with a golden calf set up by Jeroboam after the kingdoms divided. Bethel had been the center of another prophetic confrontation before—in 1 Kings 13, an unnamed young prophet cursed the altar of Bethel and its priests, with a sign performed when Jeroboam’s arm withered when he ordered the prophet siezed. A generation after Elisha, Bethel would again be the center of prophetic controversy, when Amos declared his prophecy against Israel (which we have in the book of Amos) in Bethel, cursing Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, declaring, “Thus says YHWH, ‘Your wife will become a whore in the city, your sons and daughters will fall by the sword, your land will be divided up by a measuring line, and you yourself will die upon unclean soil’” (Amos 7:10–17). In addition, if forty two of these young comedians were mauled by the bears, exactly how many are we to assume were actually present for this scene of mockery? When a couple large wild bears run out of the woods and begin wreaking havoc, people tend to scatter rather quickly. In my experience, such large groups of people rarely form accidentally; from the numbers involved, this appears to be an organized public demonstration against Elisha and his God.

Bethel’s rejection of YHWH—reflected in these youngsters’ behavior towards the prophet—is what leads Elisha to curse these youthful hooligans “in the name of the Lord.” In fact, like Amos after him, Elisha’s curse appears to be a repetition of (part of) the curse for rejecting YHWH in the covenant from Sinai: “If then you act with hostility and are unwilling to hear/obey me … I will send the wild beasts among you and bereave you of your children” (Lev 26:22–23), exactly what happens in this case. Much is made about the blessings contained in the covenant and the many blessings promised by God, but not many want to remember the other side of the equation—disobedience calls forth awful curses. That Elisha’s curse brings about swift comeuppance is no less a sign of his authority as a prophet and representative of the covenant (and thus the truth of his protests against idolatry) than Elijah’s victorious confrontation on Carmel had been. Recall that in his first act as Elijah’s successor, Elisha had just miraculously purified the accursed, polluted water of Jericho, bringing blessing to those who received YHWH; this second act serves as a sign of God’s continued judgment upon covenant-breakers. Such a visible sign of judgment serves—just as Elijah’s drought and victory on Carmel (complete with the slaughter of 450 false prophets)—as a sign of YHWH’s reality and his covenantal claim upon Israel. In addition, given the fact that Elijah had been sought by the king and threatened with death by the queen, this kind of mockery and aggressive behavior serves as a threat—and as with Elijah before him, it becomes immediately clear that YHWH himself will look after the safety of his prophet(s), much to the disadvantage of their opponents.

God Will Not Be Mocked, So Don’t Taunt a Prophet of YHWH (Even if he is bald)

So, Elisha’s curse was not simply a case of a temperamental guy getting bit touchy about his appearance and calling down curses upon a group of kids for drawing attention to his baldness. Rather, it was a prophetic sign—at the very beginning of his service as God’s spokesperson—of YHWH’s displeasure at Israel’s covenantal disobedience, a warning that, without repentance, the other curses stipulated in the covenant were soon to come. Granted, modern sensibilities tend to be at odds with any sort of divine retribution—”How dare God kill anyone!” (Then again, a rather high percentage of people tend to die at the end of their lives anyway, suggesting it’s just a matter of when God chooses to “kill.”) This tends to be even more the case when involving children. But such a complaint involves more of a problem with the essential worldview reflected in the Bible at large; this is by no means a problematic passage if one is willing to take the worldview reflected in the text and accept God’s authority as judge. It is also important to note that God is the one who defends himself/his prophet here—no human being is taking into his/her own hands to defend God or himself against others in a violent manner. Elisha’s curse simply marks yet another occasion in which Israel’s rejection of God results in receiving the curses of the covenant, yet another milestone on the downward path towards the final, most serious of covenantal curses promised for disobedience—being scattered among the nations in exile.

Related posts:

1. “Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1
2. “That day will come like a thief”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #4
3. “Pearly Gates” and “Streets of Gold”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #2

Approximate reading time: 7 minutes.

I’m wanting to do this one for a while—in fact, I almost did this one before the last post of this series, but decided not to swing at four softballs in a row. This post yet again deals with eschatology—a subject that, quite frankly, is a source of many batting practice fastballs for those looking for misinterpreted Bible passages. The passage is in the “triple tradition” (a passage occurring in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21), so the wording varies slightly between each. Since it was most likely the earliest of the three, I have chosen to follow Mark in this post, though I will also make note of significant differences below:

Mark 13:1–13 Καὶ ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ λέγει αὐτῷ εἷς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ· διδάσκαλε, ἴδε ποταποὶ λίθοι καὶ ποταπαὶ οἰκοδομαί. καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· βλέπεις ταύτας τὰς μεγάλας οἰκοδομάς; οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ.
Καὶ καθημένου αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν κατέναντι τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν κατ᾿ ἰδίαν Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης καὶ Ἀνδρέας· εἰπὸν ἡμῖν, πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα συντελεῖσθαι πάντα; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἤρξατο λέγειν αὐτοῖς· βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ· πολλοὶ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου λέγοντες ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ πολλοὺς πλανήσουσιν. ὅταν δὲ ἀκούσητε πολέμους καὶ ἀκοὰς πολέμων, μὴ θροεῖσθε· δεῖ γενέσθαι, ἀλλ᾿ οὔπω τὸ τέλος. ἐγερθήσεται γὰρ ἔθνος ἐπ᾿ ἔθνος καὶ βασιλεία ἐπὶ βασιλείαν, ἔσονται σεισμοὶ κατὰ τόπους, ἔσονται λιμοί· ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων ταῦτα.
Βλέπετε δὲ ὑμεῖς ἑαυτούς· παραδώσουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς συνέδρια καὶ εἰς συναγωγὰς δαρήσεσθε καὶ ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνων καὶ βασιλέων σταθήσεσθε ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς. καὶ εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πρῶτον δεῖ κηρυχθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.

“And when he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Teacher, what amazing stones and buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “You see these massive buildings? Not a single stone will be left here upon another; they’ll all be torn down.”And while he was sitting opposite the Temple on the Mount of Olives, Peter, James, John, and Andrew were asking him privately, “Tell us: when will these things happen, and what will be the sign when these things are about to be fulfilled?”

And Jesus began to say to them, “Make sure no one deceives you; many will come in my name, saying ‘I am!’^ and will deceive many. But when you hear about wars and reports of wars, don’t worry. They are necessary, but they don’t mark the end,* because nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be earthquakes and famines in various places.** These are the beginning of birth pains.

“But watch yourselves! They will hand you over to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, as a witness to them. The Gospel must first be preached to all the nations.”***

^ Matthew has “I am the Christ” here; Luke follows Mark, but adds “and ‘the time is near.’ Do not go after them.”

* A more formal word-for-word translation would be something like, “but the end is not yet,” but that is simply an idiomatic way of saying “these things have nothing to do with the end,” hence my translation. The more formal translation simply isn’t the way English speakers would get the idea across. Matthew copies Mark here, but Luke has “When you hear of wars and insurrections, don’t be terrified, since these things must take place first, but the end won’t follow them immediately”—in Luke also, the point is that these wars, etc. are not to be considered a sign of the end.

** Luke adds, “and there will be fearsome things and signs from heaven.”

*** Luke leaves out this verse and reorganizes the section somewhat.

These verses, with their “wars and rumors of wars,” and the “earthquakes and famines” (often simply expanded to “natural disasters”) are normally understood as the “signs of the end times,” where Jesus warns about the many turmoils that will signal the end as it draws near.  In a similar manner, Jesus’ reference to “birth pains” is often understood as suggesting that these things (especially the natural disasters) will simply get more frequent and substantial as the end approaches. This reading of the passage has thus been the source of some of the most embarrassing (or entertaining, depending on how one looks at these things) media in the Christian world, such as the amazing “Rapture Index” and other similar websites, newsletters, etc.

The problem with these interpretations is that they read the passage very nearly exactly counter to what Jesus actually says. Jesus lists these things off only to explain that they should not be understood as markers of the eschaton. He lists off many things that could be construed as end-time signals and then summarily dismisses them, then moving on to the things that he declares actual indicators of the end.

In other words, Jesus says something like this: “You’ll hear of wars, reports of wars, nations and kingdoms battling each other, and there’ll be earthquakes and famines in many lands. But don’t worry, these things have little to do with the timing of the end. In fact, many of you will be put in prison and stand before kings—but that also is not an indicator of the end. No, the Gospel must be preached to the all the nations and then the end will come.”

So the point of the passage is first to declare that the main marker of the end will be the Gospel having been preached to all the nations, followed by a number of other signs that he lists throughout the rest of the discourse.

This makes sense, given that wars, reports of wars, nations and kingdoms at odds, famines, and earthquakes have been a reality—and a frequent reality—throughout human history. Just look at 1 Kings, where it declares that there was a season every year “when kings go out to war.” In other words, at least as far back as David, every year there was a designated time when nation rose against nation and decided, “Let’s go out and kill each other.” War has been a nearly constant reality, the norm rather than the exception, throughout human history. Peace, on the other hand, has been a rare thing indeed.

As for famines and earthquakes, these two things have been around throughout human history as well. In fact famines are probably less frequent now than ever before (which is really amazing given how many people there are in this world without adequate food or water). In the ancient world, where they had no modern agriculture or food shipping or preservation, famines were an ever-present threat. A swarm of locusts, major storms, or flooding could wipe out years of plenty in an instant. Earthquakes, also, have been a consistent component of the human experience, as the Earth’s crust is composed of ever-shifting tectonic plates. There certainly have been more active periods and less active periods, but earthquakes themselves are not a sign of the end times even in times when they are happening more frequently than others.

So, frankly, Jesus’ counsel makes sense, especially since any one of these things (especially famine and earthquakes) were often considered “signs” from the gods in the ancient world. Jesus warns his disciples not to get caught up in that kind of concern, telling them not to worry whenever they see these tumultuous (but relatively common) events that otherwise might be thought as signs of the end. (Keep in mind that eclipses, earthquakes, wars, etc. were all seen as “signs” in Jesus’ day; this passage is a warning against this kind of thinking.) Instead, he gives them a task (preaching the Gospel) and states that he will not return until that task is finished. He then follows with a number of more unusual and cryptic predictions of “signs” that he ties into his return and to the end (but we will not deal with those aspects at this time).

“But wait,” you ask, “what about the ‘birth pains’ reference? Doesn’t this mean that these things will increase in frequency and intensity as the day draws near?” Not exactly. First of all, the “birth pains” reference is a common trope for sharp or sudden anguish in Israelite prophetic literature (cf. Ps 48:6; Micah 4:9; Is 13:8; Jer 22:23). Secondly, another New Testament passage sheds light on this particular usage, giving a closer look at how these things were understood in earliest apocalyptic Christianity:

“And we know that the whole of creation groans together and suffers birth pains together up until now” (Romans 8:22).

In Romans 8, Paul asserts that creation has in fact been suffering birth pains throughout history and will continue to suffer until the “children of God” are revealed at the end. This is a pretty good parallel passage, and it is clear that the “birth pains” are envisioned as a constant—and as having a long history—not as a metaphor for increasing frequency or intensity over time. So there is little reason to over-stretch the metaphor in the Synoptic Gospels, either.

Yet again we have found that a passage concerning eschatology has been read to mean very nearly the opposite of what it actually says. Rather than this passage assuaging worry and deemphasizing an ever-present obsession with this kind of event, much of the Christian world continues to use these very things in exactly the way that Jesus warned against. In contrast, this passage, properly understood, places the focus on the spread of the Gospel as the primary and necessary sine qua non (“without which, nothing”) eschatological indicator. After that task has been completed, other signs are to follow, but the reader can rest assured that (at least according to the Gospels) wars, rumors of wars, famines, and earthquakes are not “the signs of the times.”

Related posts:

1. “That day will come like a thief”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #4
2. “Pearly Gates” and “Streets of Gold”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #2
3. “Judge not, lest you be judged”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #3

Approximate reading time: 7.5 minutes.

*If new to this series, you might want to check the introduction.*

The first three installments of this series covered misinterpretations most often seen at the popular level. While today’s passage is indeed commonly misinterpreted at the popular level, it is surprisingly very often misconstrued even at the highest levels of scholarship. The passage is found in 1 Thessalonians 5, where Paul begins to discuss the “Day of the Lord” (or “the Lord’s Day”; a term denoting the eschatological “Sabbath,” when Christ will return):

1 Thessalonians 5:1–3 Περὶ δὲ τῶν χρόνων καὶ τῶν καιρῶν, ἀδελφοί, οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ὑμῖν γράφεσθαι, αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε ὅτι ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτὶ οὕτως ἔρχεται. ὅταν λέγωσιν· εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια, τότε αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς ἐφίσταται ὄλεθρος ὥσπερ ἡ ὠδὶν τῇ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν.

“Now, brothers, you don’t need me to to write to you about the times and appointments*, because you know full well that the Day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night—while they are saying, “Peace and safety,” then sudden destruction will come upon them like labor pains upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.”

*καιρῶν is rather difficult to translate here as it denotes a distinct or fixed period of time, often being used of festal holidays, special feasts, etc. It often has the notion of “the appropriate time,” but that doesn’t communicate the proper sense to an English ear in this passage. As such, I’ve chosen to translate it with “appointments,” which seems to give as close a parallel to the temporal notion expressed here as I can think of.

This passage is most often cited as evidence that Paul taught the imminent return of Christ, that is, that Jesus was going to return at any moment, without warning. This teaching is most notable with Dispensational Evangelical theologians pushing the so-called pre-Millennial, pre-Tribulation rapture (John MacArthur, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, et al.) but it is also surprisingly dominant in so-called “liberal” scholarship as well, making it one of the few places these two camps actually agree.

Examples:

E.P. Sanders cites 1 Thess 5:2 as evidence that “the Day of the Lord [was] expected suddenly” (he also lists Phil 1:6 and 1 Cor 5:5, neither of which have anything remotely to do with imminent expectation). (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 448)

J.D.G Dunn likewise cites 1 Thess 5:2f in a section where he argues that “the expectation of an imminent parousia was a prominent feature: it was well known that the Thessalonians’ turning to God had been a turning to await the parousia, the coming of Jesus …. Evidently Paul’s proclamation had led his converts to believe that the eschatological climaxwas very imminent indeed. … So far as Paul personally was concerned, ther was no real problem, and his own expectation of an imminent End was scarcely diminished.” (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 355)

In fact, ever since J.E.C. Schmidt’s Vermutungen über die bieden Breife an die Thessalonicher, this passage is often used as “Exhibit A” to show that 2 Thessalonians is not Pauline, since 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 clearly teaches against an imminent Parousia, laying out specific things that must happen before the return of Christ. The argument posits that some anonymous post-Pauline forger set out to remedy the problem of the “delayed Parousia” (that is, the growing disappointment that Jesus hadn’t returned right away like the first generation Christians had expected) by “correcting” Paul’s imminent theology, explaining that certain things had to happen first. (This narrative of disappointed early eschatological expectation being tempered by later New Testament writings, which push the Parousia to the distant future has been a fixture in New Testament scholarship for over a century now.)

But how could this passage mean anything other than an imminent expectation for the return of Christ? Doesn’t Paul clearly say the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night? Sure, and if that was all Paul said, the imminence interpretation would be fairly secure. But the passage doesn’t end there, despite so many interpreters stopping at that point. Yet again, a text without a context is a pretext—by not reading through the end of the passage, we arrive at a totally distorted, often entirely reversed, interpretation. Paul continues:

1 Thess 5:4 ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σκότει, ἵνα ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς ὡς κλέπτης καταλάβῃ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς υἱοὶ φωτός ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ἡμέρας. Οὐκ ἐσμὲν νυκτὸς οὐδὲ σκότους· ἄρα οὖν μὴ καθεύδωμεν ὡς οἱ λοιποί ἀλλὰ γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν.

“But, brothers, you shouldn’t be surprised by that day like a thief, because you aren’t in darkness.* For you are all children^ of light and children^ of day—we are not of night or darkness. So then, let’s not sleep like the rest, but let us be alert and sober.”

*I have translated this verse rather dynamically here, rearranging the word order into more familiar and colloquial English style rather than maintaining the Greek word order. More slavishly translated, the verse reads as follows: “But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that the day should overtake you [emphatic] like a thief.” In English this “is/are not … so that X should” construction is archaic (the typical English reader is likely to misconstrue the positive “X should” at the end of the construction and actually get the interpretation backwards by not connecting it to the “are not” in the preceding clause), but it is a standard Greek way of expressing “X should not because Y…,” hence the translation above.
^The Greek has “brothers” here, but there’s little reason to retain the masculine gender in modern English, which tends to prefer “children” in such cases.

So the logic of the passage actually goes something like this:

“You already know about the times and appointments, so I don’t need to write you. You already know that it’s going to take the outsiders by surprise, since they’re living in darkness. That day will come upon the wicked like a thief in the night, like labor pains on a pregnant woman. But you won’t be taken by surprise, because you’re not in darkness. You can see clearly, since you’re in the light. So let’s make sure we stay sober and alert. …”

So, to recap,  It’s abundantly clear that this passage does not say that Jesus could return at any moment, nor that everyone will be taken by surprise by the Day of the Lord. Nor is does Paul suggest in these verses that the Day is “right around the corner.” In fact, one of the most striking things about this passage—and 1 Thessalonians as a whole, in fact—is how calm, how reassuring the tone is. There is no wild-eyed “the end is near” sense in this letter. On the contrary, after reminders of proper behavior, Paul first goes out of his way to gently reassure the Thessalonians about the fate of those who die before the Parousia—the basic message is that it doesn’t matter when that day comes, only that it will indeed come.*

*That Paul says “we who are alive and remain” in 4:17 has been overblown—it’s a basic turn of phrase. My question for those pointing to this verse to prove that Paul clearly thought he would live to see the Parousia is whether Paul would have included himself among the dead if he had expected otherwise. Paul frequently uses the inclusive pronoun “we” in this kind of generic sense. To look for technical usage in this kind of generic phrase is overreaching unless there’s other evidence that it’s not. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.*

Only after getting this basic message across does Paul turn to address the timing of the Day of the Lord. But it should not be forgotten that the timing question is still part of the same discussion as that in chapter 4. And as we’ve seen, Paul doesn’t preach immediacy or unexpectedness in chapter 5, but exactly the opposite. Paul reminds the Thessalonians that those who walking in the light will not be surprised by the Day of the Lord, since they, being awake and alert, should see it coming. The passage wraps up in the same way it began, with a reminder that the near-ness or distance of the Parousia is not the concern:

1 Thess 5:11 ὅτι οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν.

“Because God has not appointed us to wrath, but to possession of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep, we live with him.”

Paul’s concluding thought on the matter is to emphasize yet again that the timing of the Lord’s coming isn’t especially relevant, that the proper concern is to live in the proper manner, since both the living and the dead will have to stand before Christ as judge on that Day. This is a far cry from the immediacy so often pulled from this passage!

One major reason a proper understanding of this passage is so critical is its use as perhaps the primary proof for non-Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians. But if Paul is not pushing imminence and immediacy in this passage, the eschatological scenarios of 1 and 2 Thessalonians aren’t contradictory. For that matter, I find it a bit ironic that the modern misreading of 1 Thessalonians 5 is precisely the kind of misreading that would have prompted something like 2 Thessalonians as a corrective. The author of 2 Thessalonians expresses some puzzlement that the Thessalonians think the Day of the Lord has already come (or, as most interpret this passage, is immediately imminent). Don’t they remember that it won’t be a surprise for the church, that certain things have to precede it? Once 1 Thessalonians is properly understood, it opens the door for 2 Thessalonians to be at least reconsidered as a possibly authentic Pauline epistle.

A second point of significance involves popular modern theology. Recall that imminence is a central feature of the so-called “pre-Tribulation rapture” teaching that has swept the Evangelical world in the last hundred years. But this passage clearly teaches against that concept, striking a critical blow at this shoddy end-times teaching.

Thirdly, the calm tone of this passage and its de-emphasis on the immediacy of Christ’s return calls into question the narrative of the “problem of the delayed Parousia” so often assumed in studies of earliest Christianity. 1 Thessalonians is likely either our earliest or second earliest epistle (some scholars who think that Paul wrote both Thessalonian letters have speculated that 2 Thessalonians actually came first), and if it already holds such a moderate view of the Parousia, on what ground can such a narrative stand? On the contrary, it seems that even the earliest Christian dogma, as witnessed in 1 Thessalonians 5 was prepared for a lengthy “delay” of the Parousia. As J. Christiaan Beker astutely observed:

Paul is simply not an apocalyptic fanatic who runs breathlessly through the Roman Empire because the end of the world is imminent. He spends, for instance, one and a half years at Ephesus and contemplates a mission to Spain. … It seems, therefore, that the scholarly debate on the delay of the Parousia focuses exclusively on calculating chronological time, that is, on the chronological dating that separates the Christ-event and the end time, whereas for Paul the issue is primarily not one of chronological reckoning but one of theological necessity (Paul the Apostle, 178).

Related posts:

1. “Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1
2. “Judge not, lest you be judged”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #3
3. “Pearly Gates” and “Streets of Gold”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #2

*If new to this series, please see the introduction.*

Today we address one of the most quoted and most commonly misinterpreted passages in the Bible, a verse usually cited to mean that people shouldn’t judge one another but meaning something entirely different:

Matthew 7:1–2 Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε· ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.

“Do not judge, so that you will not be judged, since you will be judged in the same judgment that you make, and you will be measured by the same standard you apply.”

This is one of the most quoted verses in the Bible, usually in a context something like this: “Yeah, he cheated on his wife, but who am I to judge? Hey, we’re all sinners, right? Like Jesus said, ‘Judge not, lest you be judged,’” or “Don’t judge me—if you were really a Christian you’d listen to Jesus when he said, ‘judge not.’” That is, the verse is often marshaled in order to defend against any declaration that a given person’s behavior is wrong (quite often marshaled by the person in question). Effectively, when quoted as such, the verse is understood as a prohibition against declaring any specific action sinful or wrong, since doing so would mean “judging” someone.

Often this verse is thrown around after some church figure (like Ted Haggard, for example) is found to be doing the very things he thundered against in the pulpit. “See,” it is said, “he shouldn’t have judged—he’s no better than anyone else.” Though this latter interpretation is often considered to be an extension of the former, the first interpretation entirely misses the point of the passage while the latter one nails it dead center. Despite how it appears if one stops reading after the first verse, this passage in Matthew is not forbidding judgment but hypocrisy. Yet again, we find that a text without a context is a pretext—the primary exegetical fault leading to misinterpretation is neglecting to read closely the surrounding section of a key verse.

Jesus follows up his warning against judgment with an explanation—we will all be judged by the same measure that we use. If we cannot hold to the standard we use, we have no business applying that standard to others. There are two possible responses to this statement: one, operating under the assumption that no one can possibly live up to a high standard, holds to the interpretation mentioned above that no one should ever judge anyone else, since we’re all sinners. The second possibility is that we should all amend our own behavior and live properly before exercising judgment and helping others to do the same.

The former is a popular option in today’s culture, which emphasizes “tolerance” as one of the highest virtues, while the latter is the choice actually made in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus rebukes the hearer in the verses immediately following the ones we’re discussing,

“Why do you see the splinter in your brother’s eye but do not notice the log in your own eye? … You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye.” (7:3, 5)

There are several things to note here: the first is Jesus’ wry observation about perspective. The closer an object gets to the eye, the larger it appears—a splinter from afar is log-sized if it’s in one’s eye. So a fault in one’s own life is a far greater problem than the same fault in another’s life—the opposite of how we tend to think. But the point of the passage is to shut up only until one corrects one’s own life. And, contrary to much subsequent Christian theological development, the Matthean Jesus actually expects that a person can do so, ultimately living in a righteous manner. (This would often be labeled “self-righteousness” today, though it is simply called “righteousness” in Matthew.)

The second thing worthy of note is Jesus point that only after correcting one’s own behavior will one see clearly enough to make adequate judgments and help anyone else correct his/her own behavior. This is a recognition of the human tendency to judge based on our own heart; that is, we tend to see ourselves in others. (The postmodern recognition of essential subjectivity is closely related to this concept.) Just like a man with a splinter in his eye, we see that splinter (only much larger than it really is—as a beam) everywhere we look. If we are arrogant, we tend to see arrogance in other people. If we are cruel, we tend to suspect cruelty in others. If we are lecherous (an outstanding and underused word—isn’t that a great word, “lecherous”? Even better is the noun, “lecher,” as in “you filthy lecher!”), we tend to suspect sexual motives, desires, or behaviors in others. It is extraordinarily hard for us to break out of ourselves enough to truly empathize, seeing from another’s viewpoint, and Jesus makes the case that it is far harder—perhaps impossible—to do so when we are not pure hearted ourselves. As long as we hold to our own faults, we will see them in everyone else. But, as Titus 1:15 says, “to the pure everything is pure.”

So the passage is actually a condemnation of hypocrisy, not judgment. Jesus’ counsel is to tend to our own behavior and attitudes before attempting to help anyone else. If we attempt to judge before doing so, our judgment will be flawed by our own “splinters.” But the passage is in no way forbidding judgment. On the contrary, it asserts that judgment, like charity, begins at home.

It is extraordinarily ironic that this passage therefore condemns those who most vigorously accuse others of “judging,” since they are themselves condemning condemnation—the very hypocrisy the passage condemns! The very judgment they condemn is precisely what they themselves are doing—they see their own splinter in the eyes of those around them. This passage would say to them, “Don’t forbid others from judging while condemning their judgment or right to judge! You hypocrites! Far from forbidding judgment, you have made yourselves the chief justices!” The whole point is that Jesus here rebukes those who judge others for doing what they themselves do—like negatively judging someone for being judgmental.

In the immediately following verse, Jesus requires good judgment: “Don’t give what is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls before swine.” Wouldn’t this require identifying who the “dogs” and “swine” are? What about identifying the “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” whom we “will know from their fruits” in 7:15–20? Elsewhere in Matthew (chapter 18), Jesus lays out guidelines for dealing with a “brother who sins,” involving a progression from showing him his error in private to taking the matter before the whole community. In the same vein, Paul repeatedly emphasizes the church’s responsibility to judge its members (though, interestingly, not the world; cf. 1 Cor 5–6, et al.).

One thing that is often ignored in the “judge not” discussion is that judgment also involves (in fact starts with) a declaration of what is good. If we do not judge, we cannot praise anything any more than we can condemn it. Judgment involves making the distinction between good, bad, or indifferent, not simply declaring something to be bad. In fact, it is impossible to go through life without judging; every decision we make implies a particular value judgment underlying it. As such, in its common usage, the “don’t judge” mentality often actually means, “judge this as right and good!” While it is true that some things do not require a distinct judgment, others do require a position, and to take no position is to judge it affirmatively (tolerance of adultery is implicit acceptance of it, for example). Surely no one would assume that murder should be ignored and not condemned! Any society abiding by the “don’t judge” mantra would soon devolve into utter chaos.

Secondly, without judgment (and specifically negative judgment), forgiveness is impossible. Forgiveness assumes a previous negative judgment that is superseded by the extension of mercy towards another—and Jesus requires that people forgive one another as they have been forgiven themselves (by God). Again, this both assumes judgment and encourages a merciful response.

Thirdly, the actual message of this passage—deal with one’s own sins before looking at anyone else’s, since good judgment requires a pure heart—is critically important for understanding the rest of Matthew and even the Christian life itself. Likewise, it is critical to understand that Matthew’s Jesus emphasizes repentance and right action and assumes that once these things are in place, good judgment can be made and is in fact necessary. No one should ever let himself/herself be shouted down by cries of “don’t judge,” or accusations of being “self-righteous,” since such quotes out of context do damage to the intent of the passage as a pretext for defending behavior.

In summary, in this passage Jesus warns of the human tendency to judge based on our own faults and flaws. This warning is one that should be considered before any assumption about another’s behavior or intentions. Instead, the passage asserts that we should always examine ourselves first to see if the splinter we see is actually affixed to our own eye—and only if our eye is clean can we trust our judgment enough to begin the process of helping remove the offense from anyone else. This is an incredibly important point, both emphasizing the importance of good judgment and the steps necessary to acquire it.

Related posts:

1. “Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1
2. “Pearly Gates” and “Streets of Gold”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #2
3. Misinterpreted Bible Passages Series: Introduction

*If new to this series, please see the introduction.*

Revelation 21:21: καὶ οἱ δώδεκα πυλῶνες δώδεκα μαργαρῖται, ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν πυλώνων ἦν ἐξ ἑνὸς μαργαρίτου. καὶ ἡ πλατεῖα τῆς πόλεως χρυσίον καθαρὸν ὡς ὕαλος διαυγής.

“And the twelve gates of the city were twelve pearls; each single gate was made from one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.”

This verse and the surrounding passage describing the New Jerusalem at the end of Revelation is generally taken as a description of “heaven,” the place where the saints will spend eternity. Heaven is understood to have jeweled walls, “pearly gates,” and streets of gold. Surely I don’t need to explain much further, because everyone out there has encountered this interpretation in some form or another.

The main flaw in this interpretation is (as is often the case with misinterpreted Scripture) that it ignores the context, which explains what is being described. Here is how the passage begins:

“Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven final plagues came and spoke with me, saying, ‘Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, like a stone of crystal-clear jasper ….” (Rev 21:9–11)

It is hard to imagine the passage being clearer in terms of what it intends to describe: “the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” This is not a description of heaven, nor of any specific tangible (or intangible) “place.” Rather, the passage is clear that it is a metaphorical description of the “bride of Christ”—that is, of the church, the assembly of God’s people.

She has a high wall (v. 12) because she must be entered by proper means and is protected from outside attack. She has twelve gates (v. 12), because this is the number of the tribes and the original number of the apostles, through whom one must enter. Those gates are on all four sides, since the Church is to come from the whole earth. The passage even explicitly says that the twelve foundation stones represent the twelve apostles (v. 14)!

And the gold streets and many precious stones? This is all well within the traditional portrayal of the virtues and virtuous people:

“The tongue of the righteous is like choice silver. (Prov 10:20)
“Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word rightly spoken.” (Prov 25:11)
“There is gold, and many jewels, and an abundance of utensils—the lips of knowledge.” (Prov 20:15)
“An earring of gold and an ornament of gold is a wise judge to a listening ear.” (Prov 25:12)
“Who can find an excellent wife? Far better than jewels!” (Prov 31:10)

“His head is like gold, pure gold;
His locks are like clusters of dates
And black as a raven.
“His hands are rods of gold
Set with beryl;
His abdomen is carved ivory
Inlaid with sapphires.
“His legs are pillars of alabaster
Set on pedestals of pure gold;
His appearance is like Lebanon
Choice as the cedars.” (Song of Songs 5:13–15)

According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise architect I laid a foundation; another is building on it. But let each pay attention to how he builds on it. For no person can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if someone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each person’s work will be exposed; for the day will show it, since it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one’s work. … Do you not realize that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Cor 3:10–13, 16)

Perhaps even more significant is the promise in Isaiah that God has not forgotten Zion, that her enemies will become a part of her, that she will put them on “like jewels and bind them on like a bride” (one of many prophecies of Gentile incorporation in Isaiah)

“But Zion said, ‘The LORD has forsaken me,
And the Lord has forgotten me.’
“Can a woman forget her nursing child
And have no compassion on the son of her womb?
Even these may forget, but I will not forget you.
“See, I have inscribed you on the palms of my hands;
Your walls are continually before me.
“Your builders hurry;
Your destroyers and devastators
Will depart from you.
“Lift up your eyes and look around;
All of them gather together, they come to you.
As I live,” declares the LORD,
“You will surely put on all of [your destroyers and devastators] as jewels and bind them on as a bride. (Is 49:14–18)

So it is evident that the description of the “New Jerusalem” in Revelation is intended to be a description of the people of God, not of some vision of the future abode of the saints (for that matter, recall that a new—or renewed—earth is portrayed as the future home of the saints).

This is admittedly not the most important issue in Christianity, but it does affect a few things. For one, it portrays a vision of eternity that focuses on money, etc.; is it really supposed to be a selling point for Christianity that there will be a lot of valuable stuff sitting around? What good would it be in that environment, anyway? Secondly, it misses the point of this part of Revelation, which intends to illustrate the true righteous qualities of God’s people—God’s people have become the very jewels of righteousness, their very essence is righteous. Thirdly, attention is taken away from the real prize of eternity as portrayed in Revelation: the presence of God is entirely in the midst of his people. Fourthly, it misses some of the intertextual connections with passages like Isaiah 49, where it connects the restoration of Israel with the incorporation of Gentile “enemies,” leading to potential misunderstandings of the eschatological message of Christianity. And finally, it’s extraordinarily irritating for those who do understand what the passage is talking about to hear discussion of the opulence of heaven.

Related posts:

1. “Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1
2. Misinterpreted Bible Passages Series: Introduction

*If new to this series, please see the introduction.*

Matthew 5:27–28: Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· οὐ μοιχεύσεις. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

“You heard it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

The ordinary interpretation of this passage is that lust is equivalent to adultery; that is, if a man sexually desires a woman, he has already committed adultery with her in God’s eyes. This interpretation is reflected in the following translations:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (NIV)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (NASB)

“You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (NLT)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (NRSV)

Many churches (especially within Evangelical circles), emphasize this verse to adolescent boys, warning them that if they so much as think of a woman in a sexual manner, they’ve already sinned, that they’ve already effectively done the deed with her. Such an interpretation often works hand-in-glove with the common idea that Jesus “intensified” the Law in the Sermon on the Mount, setting a higher standard in order to show that no person could actually live up to God’s standards, showing that a person could only be saved by recognizing the impossibility of righteousness and then receiving forgiveness (a subject that will soon be addressed on this blog). So the common teaching is that sexual lust is absolutely evil—equivalent, even, to the actual act of sexual sin.

Another very popular way of reading this verse is to understand “lust” as indicating misplaced or overly robust libido; that is, “lust” is seen as illicit sexual desire. For example, here’s a recent (and quite common) response to the question of what lust is from a message board conversation I had some time ago: “I take lust to mean wanting something more than you should in an unhealthy way.”

This conception of “lust” often overlaps with the prior interpretation, to the effect that the young man is told, “Of course you will recognize that a woman is beautiful—that’s natural and unavoidable—but the moment your thoughts become sexual in nature, you’ve lusted, and that’s as bad as actually committing adultery.” Despite its popularity, this interpretation is imprecise, even flat wrong, and leads to surprisingly harmful consequences, making it a great candidate to start this series.

Lust or Covet?

The first thing to understand in this passage is that Jesus is in no way intensifying the Law here, nor is he saying anything new. What’s that, you say? The Law doesn’t forbid lusting after a woman? Well, as it turns out, the Greek word usually translated “lust” in this passage (ἐπιθυμέω; epithumeô) happens to be the same word used to translate the Hebrew word for “covet” (‏חמד) in the Tenth Command in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), which says:

οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου. οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ πλησίον σου οὔτε τὸν ἀγρὸν αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὴν παιδίσκην αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ βοὸς αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ ὑποζυγίου αὐτοῦ οὔτε παντὸς κτήνους αὐτοῦ οὔτε ὅσα τῷ πλησίον σού ἐστιν. (Ex 20:17 LXX)

“You will not covet your neighbor’s wife. You will not covet your neighbors house or his field or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or any animal which is your neighbor’s.”

Sounds an awful lot like what Jesus says in this passage, doesn’t it? They’re even more alike once one realizes that the Greek word for “woman” and “wife” happens to be the same. In this passage, Jesus reminds his audience that the Law not only prohibits adultery, it prohibits coveting. This is not so much an intensification of the Law as it is a reminder of what the Law already says. And just as the Law itself was intended to be fulfilled, Jesus intends his words here to be followed (and that following them is entirely possible).

Another important point is that the command does not forbid recognition of quality or even desire itself (such would be nonsense) but something else: it forbids the action of coveting (hence the verbal form). “Lust” or “desire,” even the sexual variety, is nowhere forbidden in Scripture, nor is it equated with sin, only with the potential to sin (cf. James 1, where lust leads to sin but is not itself sinful). It is also important to note the distinction between the verbal form and the nominal form: when the Hebrew חמד or Greek ἐπιθυμέω are used as verbs in the OT, it denotes desire directed at obtaining the specific object in question and not merely the existence of the desire itself. This fits well with the Tenth Command, which is perhaps best understood as forbidding fixing one’s desire upon obtaining something that is not rightfully one’s own. In order to explain this point more adequately, a fuller discussion of the meaning of “lust” (Gk. ἐπιθυμία; epithumia) in the New Testament and the culture of that period is necessary.

Drives and Desires

One misconception that should immediately be eliminated is that “lust” (ἐπιθυμία) is a specifically sexual term. In fact, the word simply refers to a strong, passionate desire, used either of sexual desire or of a strong desire for something non-sexual. Stepping back further, in Platonic thought, ἐπιθυμία (epithumia) is the lowest part of the human soul—representing the connection of the soul with the fleshy, bodily part of the person.

For those non-Platonists out there, this requires further explanation. Platonism explains human thought and action by dividing the “soul” (or life-force) into three parts, each of which is personified as a separate agent in itself.

The highest part is the “mind,” “intellect,” or “reason” (νοῦς, nous; sometimes λόγος, logos), which is the part associated with thinking, theorizing, believing, meditating, contemplating, etc. This part is concerned with things like truth and knowledge and the highest aspects of human life. This part is represented in the human body by the head, which is the highest part of the body, stretching towards the heavens. In the Republic, this part is identified with the philosopher/rulers who are the natural and proper leaders of the ideal city-state, while it is identified with the world creator “demiurge” in the Timaeus.

As mentioned above, the lowest part (ἐπιθυμία, epithumia; note that this is the same root as the word for “lust”) is the irrational seat of appetite, the source of human drives for pleasure, including desires for food, drink, sex, and pleasure. Socrates calls this part of the soul “money loving,” since money is typically required to satisfy all its primary appetites. This seat of the appetites was also referred to as the “flesh” in the ancient world (σάρξ; sarx). Because this part of the soul is non-rational, it is unlimited in terms of what it desires—necessary, frivolous, or even unlawful/illegal/sinful. Take food, for example. When a person is hungry, it makes no difference if the barbecue smell is coming from the neighbor’s house—it still stimulates the desire for that food. The desire for food is necessary inasmuch as the body will die without food, but the appetite does not simply restrict itself to what is necessary.

Instead, a person may desire extremely expensive food (unnecessary) or, in extreme cases, may desire to eat something improper (i.e. a child may consume his feces or an adult may suddenly desire to eat a child). Since it is prone to run amok, the appetite part of the soul must be governed by the higher parts of the soul to keep it in check. This part is represented by the lower parts of the abdomen (including the genitals) on the human body, while it is identified with the merchant/craftsman (money-making) class in the Republic. In Parmenides’ charioteer analogy, this part is likened to a wild stallion, powerful but undisciplined.

The middle part of the soul is the “spirited” or “emotional” part of the soul (θύμος, thumos; a word often denoting “heart” in Greek), the mediator between the higher and lower parts of the soul. This part is the seat of the will and courage and can be shaped through education and training. It is represented by the chest/heart area on the body and the warrior/soldier class in the Republic.

These three parts operate in harmony (likened to a harmony of three musical notes, each necessary to the song),with the ideal scenario (following Parmenides’ analogy of the charioteer) being that the mind govern the other two as a charioteer, with the “spirited” will as the lead horse and the appetite as the second horse, being governed by the union of the higher two natures. On the other hand, the danger is always that the appetites will gain the “spirited” part as an accomplice and overpower the will, leading to reckless action. Plato thus sees it as critical that the mind retains the allegiance of the will, giving it direction and controlling the appetites.

The philosophical background of such a key term is important, because that background affected the use of the term—especially for early Christian evangelists attempting to transfer the Gospel into terms understandable by an audience dominated by a Hellenistic philosophical climate. So if we are to understand what Matthew’s Gospel means by a term, we must look not only at his several uses of the word but also at the greater usage, both in the history of ideas and in literature from around his time. (Recall that Jesus, who taught in Aramaic, would not have used a Greek word for this, so the term represents an early Christian attempt to translate Jesus’ concepts into the Greek language current in that day.)

So to summarize: the presence of “lust” or “desire” is an assumed part of each human person—deriving from God-given bodily desires that are amoral in themselves, neither inherently sinful nor entirely depraved. As such the presence of such “lusts” is in no way sinful; it is simply a part of being an embodied person. But directing these desires towards taking, obtaining, or enjoying what is not lawful is forbidden—that action (itself an act of the will) is forbidden by the Tenth Command and is sin.

Now that we’ve established a bit of the history of the key term in question, we can return to Jesus’ saying in Matthew with a little better context. By now we should understand that, in contrast to the English term “lust,” which has come to be a pretty much entirely negative term—which is why it’s so amusing to say, “I’ve been lusting for this pastry all morning”—the Greek term (though having a somewhat negative tint) is not always negative in the same way, instead being indicative of strong urges or drives, which the New Testament does not condemn in themselves.

Jesus is even able to use the word of himself:

“And He said to them, ‘I have longed [ἐπιθυμέω] to eat this Passover with you before I suffer!’” (Luke 22:15)

Similarly, other non-negative uses of the word:

“For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men lusted [ἐπιθυμέω] to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” (Matt 13:17)

“And [the prodigal] longed [ἐπιθυμέω] to fill his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him.” (Luke 15:16)

“… and longing [ἐπιθυμέω] to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.” (Luke 16:21)

Again, I am not to saying that there was never a negative connotation to ἐπιθυμέω/ἐπιθυμία. But it is critical that we make the distinction between a condemnation of desire and a prohibition against coveting forbidden things, including one’s neighbor’s wife. Now we’re finally ready to look at the verse itself.

The other major mistake in the interpretation of this verse (and many translations, as shown above) involves misconstruing the grammar. The Greek does not say, “look at a woman with lust” or “look at a woman lustfully,” as though it were describing the manner of looking. On the contrary, Matthew uses a grammatical construction here that combines the preposition πρὸς (pros, pronounced “pross”) with an articular infinitive in the accusative. Matthew uses this construction four other times, and each time it denotes the purpose of the action:

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men in order to be noticed by them.” (Matt 6:1)

“… First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles in order to burn them up ….” (Matt 13:30)

“But they do all their deeds in order to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.” (Matt 23:5)

“For when she poured this perfume on my body, she did it in order to prepare me for burial.” (Matt 26:12)

So it is clear that the grammar is reflecting purpose: “anyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her.” (“Covet” is preferable here in part because “covet” better reflects the intentionality reflected in the passage.) This is a critically important point; Jesus is not suggesting that any sexual thought or inclination towards a woman is sinful. Nor is he suggesting that such thoughts or attractions being triggered by a look are sinful. The look is not the problem (nor is the presence of a beautiful woman, which some of that day tended to blame as the real problem); no, these are assumed. What is remarkable (given the popular misinterpretation) is that Jesus likewise assumes the presence of sexual desire in the man as a given, and that sexual desire isn’t seen as the problem. Instead, Jesus addresses the matter of intent, of volition, the purpose of the look. The issue is not the appetite itself but how a man directs this natural appetite and inclination. (I’m reminded here of the old saying: If you’re a young man on a beach and a beautiful woman in a bikini walks past and you don’t feel any sort of excitement or attraction, it’s not because you’re spiritual, it’s because you’re dead.)

This fits well within the immediate context; throughout this section of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is pointing out the root causes of the sins enumerated in the Law. Yes, adultery is a sin, but the sin has entered the heart the moment one determines to seek it out. The moment a man even looks at a woman for that purpose, adultery has already polluted the heart. This is the line between natural sexual attraction and the “coveting” prohibited by the Law: the Law forbids directing one’s desire towards that which is not lawful. Jesus does not condemn the desire but the action taken on the desire.

In modern terms, it’s the difference between seeing a woman and being attracted to her—a natural part of the God-created appetite and a good indicator that one is alive—and actually considering or seeking an illicit activity. In fact, in modern terms, the saying could be taken like this: “Obviously, having extramarital sex is wrong, but the moment you decide to start down that path, adultery is already in your heart.”

Finally, Jesus does not say that the thought and the action are equivalent, as is often taught. The passage does not say, “Once you’ve thought it, it’s the same as actually having done it.” That very notion is absurd! Rather, Jesus says that adultery has been committed in the heart, that the will has already bent itself towards adultery. Again, the emphasis is on intent—that is, without the decision to move towards adultery, the act would never be committed. Therefore, Jesus says, deal with the primary problem of intention and adultery becomes a non-issue. As will be shown below, the suggestion that the thought and action are equivalent can cause much harm.

Why It Matters