Interests Can Change
I mentioned that I became interested in the differences between ESV and NET as I observed the passage. Over time, I’ve found that I will have particular interest in something and learn about it. But given a few months or years, I change from that interest to having an interest in something else.
For years I played violin and pursued practice of it. Then I became a mom and I put the violin away and learned how to interact with my short people. After that, I found the joy of mountain biking. All in to learn that. And next was jeeping and then BJJ. Interests always changing.
Same with theology.
Experience with JWs
For example, about 20 years ago up in Washington state, we had some JWs who came to our door. An ongoing “relationship” occurred where they kept returning week after week. Being that Jeremy and I were new Christians, we weren’t even ill-equipped to wrangle with those folks: we were NOT equipped. But like after a match of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu where we get submitted by some technique of a higher belt, we did homework.
“That’s never going to happen again!”
What does that have to do with interests changing? Well, because of those JWs, I was motivated and interested in who God explains himself to be. The trinity. How can it be that Jesus equal with the Father? Does Jesus mean to tie the statement in John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14? What does a real Christian believe about the identities of the Godhead?
So every “quiet time” was on the look out for scripture’s definition of who is the Christ and what does that even mean? Notes were taken. And I learned a lot when my quest was focused on that one topic. There were other aspects that I gleaned as well, but when the trinity appeared, I was primed and ready to learn. The sponge was prepared to absorb.
Textual Criticism
I’m still fascinated by the trinity when I see it revealed in scripture, don’t misunderstand. But I’m far more comfortable in my level of knowledge and my ability to articulate my faith. Always room for growth, but my focus has shifted to other aspects. One of them is this study of how the translators and editors end up using the words they use. Maybe not so lofty as how they choose but since they chose this particular word, why? If I could go back to the beginning of my life, I might have studied languages and ancient biblical documents. Super interesting.
Which is why I cruised right by interpreting the first two verses in our passage when I noticed that there was a textual variant in Amos 2:7 between two English translations I respect.
Listen to Your Interests
My point here is that I believe God puts those interests and passions within us. Don’t smother them, my dear fellow student of the Word. Be faithful to the text and study it carefully without ignoring portions that might be uncomfortable, but also let your zeal for learning guide you to an extent. Don’t punt on difficult texts. However, let that zeal motivate you because you have no idea why God put it there. Perhaps you have a conversation upcoming where you will be able to articulately share whatever you’ve passionately studied instead of shrinking from the conversation because you aren’t comfortable with your level of knowledge.
I’m going to go back and interpret those two verses about Judah’s transgressions now that my curiosity about that variant has been marginally satisfied. Satisfied as far as my time and study skills will take me. I’d sure like to sit down with the editors of ESV and ask questions about why they translated as they did, though. Wouldn’t that be nifty?
Judah
In these two verses, I made a list of what Amos has to say. Seeing it in my own writing somehow makes it easier to process and then I can ask questions.
So here I have the gist of the verses. I notice that rejecting the law and not keeping statutes seem to be synonymous parallelism (remember that the editors indicate this text is a poetic form). The terms are equal, useful to make sure the audience gets the author’s meaning. The rest of my questions flowed from that starting point.
- Where does God talk about keeping his law?
- What lies have sons believed from fathers? Or their own lies that are like their fathers’ lies?
- What does it mean to be led astray?
- How do sons follow in fathers’ footsteps?
These questions lead me on a quest for understanding of the section. First, I’m looking at the cross reference the ESV provides that conveniently and appropriately takes me to the first giving of the Law in Leviticus.
Why the Law?
You know, I used to think the sections of scripture that go through the Law were dull. As I’ve been growing and learning to understand, I see the Law isn’t as much a list of do this/don’t do that which God gave to other people. To my eyes now, it’s a list of actionable This-Is-Who-I-Am concepts. Who is God? Then it became so much less dull.
Well technically, I suppose the Law is a list of do this/don’t do that, but the questions it answers about why it’s given? That’s where it gets so interesting. Especially to the philosopher. Even this burgeoning philosopher sitting in front of you. If I can understand what question is answered in the author’s statements, I will begin to understand the author.
Take this sign I found at a park my family visited in Chattanooga, TN. It is a law and a list of statutes, right? What inspired the need for the sign? What questions are being answered with the list of rules? Who are the people behind the regulations? What happened that caused this list of ordinances?
If these kinds of questions can be answered, there can be more understanding of this segment of society. Both of the law givers and potentially the law receivers.
First, understanding why the Mosaic Law was given and what provisions are within will help us understand the One who’s given the Law. Let’s have a look at where God talks about the consequences if someone rejects the Law. Answering the immediate question I have from the text is my primary purpose, but in the back of my mind is also answering this bigger questions of Who is God? What is his character? And who am I? What does God know about me as a segment of the larger group known as “man” that he gives these laws?
Leviticus 26:3-46
My first question I’m thinking of as I mull over the bullet points of Amos 2:4-5 on that sticky, is where does God command his people to keep his law? As I mentioned, the convenient cross reference the ESV editors added to Amos 2:4 led me straight to the source. I’d like to bring the whole passage here, but it’s pretty long.
So I will let you click on the link for Leviticus 26:3-46 so you can read it in context for yourself.
I’ll wait. I’m really enjoying my americano from this mug I just pulled from the kiln. Jeremy calls this style of mug “dragon eggs.”
Vocabulary
Reading it myself, I see that there are 3 main terms Moses uses to identify the subject of God’s discourse. They are synonyms used virtually interchangeably. And in fact, at the end of the section about the consequences for disobedience, they are laid out for us.
- Statutes
- Rules
- Laws
To put it succinctly, God through Moses says,
Then if you walk contrary to me
and will not listen me,
I will continue striking you,
sevenfold for your sins.1
Reading through that passage I asked you to read a minute ago, this warning about how the Israelites should walk is issued at least 3 times. In Leviticus 26:21; Leviticus 26:23-24; and Leviticus 26:27-28. Fair warning. For Israel and all God’s people. Let’s continue the investigation.
What About Lies?
Looking at the section here about Judah’s transgressions, the subject of lies arises. There are lies that have led God’s people astray. Questions form as I ponder this and I jotted them here.
I wanted to start at the most basic question. How does someone stray from the right path? From God? A person strays by following a non-God path. And I know that anything not of God is an idol.
Following non-God is also rejecting the law and rejecting God’s Word. Since the Law tells us that we are not to have any gods before God.
What I know about people is that lies start in the mind. The truth is replaced with a lie. Judah told himself that following this non-God thing would fill his national soul with what was lacking. Whatever the non-God thing is. Because I haven’t gotten far enough to yet identify the non-God thing. But God through Amos has identified that Judah is walking contrary to him. Astray. After believing lies.
Next question.
Sons and Fathers
Next I’m considering the relationship between sons and their fathers and walking in their ways. Not in our culture because that isn’t the culture Amos had in mind. In North America in the 21st century, there is an entirely different understanding about the relationship between children and parents. Here are my thoughts leading up to the study about sons and following their fathers in Bible times and Bible culture.
To begin, I remember from previous study (actually that study the JWs inspired) that in eastern culture, when a son is discussed in relation to his father they are considered to be “made of the same stuff.”
I looked at a few verses around the Bible to further my understanding of this idea in light of what Amos is saying. Because I want to let scripture interpret scripture. People like Jesus and Stephen referred to actions of sons being in conformity with what the fathers had done.
From the passage that is still open in my Logos Bible software, Leviticus 26:39-41 mentions a close relationship between the iniquities of the sons to the fathers. In fact, the audience to whom Moses is writing will rot because of their iniquities and also because of the iniquities of their father they will rot like their fathers. The sons are rotting for the same reasons as the fathers.
There is also a provision for the occasion if the sons confess the iniquity that they followed their fathers into. As I write that, my mind is thinking about the seemingly conflicting ideas of the sins of the parents and children. On the one hand, God says the sins of the fathers will be visited on the children (Exodus 20:5). On the other hand, the parents and the children shall only be punished for their own sins (Deuteronomy 24:16).
Contradiction?
Which one is it? Does this sound like God is speaking out of both sides of his mouth?
You get to join me in this rabbit trail I just found.
I do need to tell you two assumptions I have as I explore this question. One, God is not on trial. What I’ve learned about God’s character in all of my previous study is that God doesn’t lie. He doesn’t have a forked tongue. In my inquiries, that is a foundation which is immovable.
Two, there is also the law of non-contradiction. The sons cannot both be accountable for the iniquities of the fathers and not be accountable for them.
Did you follow that? Rotting because of the fathers sounds like judgment. Paying in some way for the sins of the fathers would be judgment. Those two cannot be true at the same time and in the same relationship. Therefore, I must not be understanding one of them correctly because God cannot violate the law of non-contradiction. His Word reveals who he is, and God doesn’t contradict. Therefore his Word doesn’t contradict.
So the question isn’t is there a contradiction in my mind. The question is what am I misunderstanding that makes it look like there is a contradiction? And this is not some type of theodicy; I’m not making excuses for God and the appearance of the evil of contradicting himself. Any and all confusion in the Word is because of my level of understanding. This is where I start. And you get to come with me in the process of a lay person as I investigate.
Study for a Purpose
What is my purpose? To answer the question about the relationship between a man’s iniquity and his son’s accountability for it.
Beginning with the verses that brought the question to the front, I took notes on Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20. Then I took notes on the verses in Leviticus 26.
Here is the comparison of the “they shall not suffer” and “they shall suffer” verses.
In Deuteronomy and in Ezekiel, clearly the one doesn’t die for the other. Only the sinner dies. Ezekiel 18:20 clarifies further and says that no son or father will suffer for the other.
Then I turned to the Leviticus passage where I see the sons will suffer for the fathers. As a consequence for the fathers’ sins, the sons are in a different land where they will rot like their fathers before them. Isn’t that suffering for the previous generation? What am I missing?
Key Phrases
I had a missionary friend once who said “life is in the details.” That seems true. She meant it in the context of story telling and friendship, but I think it applies elsewhere. If I don’t understand the correlation between sections of scripture, chances are I’m missing something in the details. Here I try to notice parts of speech and cultural definitions of words.
Observations
So the first thing I noticed is the word “because.” This word introduces the Law of Causality. Since one thing happened, this other thing happened. So what is the antecedent?
Then I puzzled over the term “rot away.” It’s repeated a number of times. Is it significant? In our culture, do we have a term for the equivalent? Is this describing people dying? Depending on the context, we have terms for that from passing away to kicking the bucket. Where on the spectrum is “rot away?” Is it even on the spectrum? Is there cultural significance that would shed light on my question?
Finally, I also noticed the next verse. Leviticus 26:40 talks about confession of own sin and sins of fathers. That they walked contrary to God just like their dads. The colloquialism “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” comes to mind. But if the sons repented of the sins of the fathers (which they themselves also walked), then God would remember them. He would no longer walk contrary to them.
So if there is repentance, God forgives sin. If the sons walked according to the sin of the fathers, they reap the consequences. However, if the sons repent of that familial sin, God turns back toward the sinner.
Rot Away
I want to mull this over with you for a minute. Like I said, you are with me as I explore this seeming contradiction.
Probably I will not go gather chapter and verse for you, although you are welcome to do further research on your own and then tell me what you learned. However, I remember aspects of people dying and being buried throughout scripture. These are what I remember and what I speculate about it:
- Israel made his son Jacob swear to bury him in a tomb with his fathers? A tomb Israel had hewn for himself in the land of Canaan? The body was embalmed (yes, I’m silly and I think of the movie The Mummy) and placed in the tomb. No rot.
- In Ezekiel there was a plain filled with dry bones. Why would there have been a flat area full of bones? War, seems likely. If there was a war, no one picked up the bodies of the enemies and gave them proper and honoring burial. They were left open to the elements. Initially to rot.
- When a child in Proverbs mocked his dad and scorned his mom, well then his eyes would be pecked out by the ravens of the valley and then eaten by vultures. Digested, which is a form of rot. If there was anything left, it would rot.
- John the Baptizer’s body was taken and placed in a tomb. No rot.
My current inquiry is “What does it mean to rot?” The majority of what I see in my list up above is that those who belong to someone are not just left out to rot. Being cared for after death is preventing rot. By looking at mostly the opposite, I think I understand better what the whole of scripture is saying.
Conclusion of the Rabbit Trail
Wow. I just went back to our passage and said to myself, “Why am I even looking at rot? There isn’t rot here.” Good grief. Talk about distracted! The rot that was happening in Leviticus. Fathers sin, the family lives in a different land (with different cultural practices regarding death, most likely), the fathers die there and rot, the children follow the fathers into sin, stuck in the land that is not their own, die, and rot there. Just like Dad.
Are the children suffering for the sins of the fathers? By being in a land that is not their own, yes. Are they suffering to death for the sins of the fathers? No. Because God makes provision that if they repent, if they humble themselves by acknowledging they have chosen the wrong path, then God will himself turn from walking contrary to them. Check out Joshua 24:19-28 for God’s promise to the Israelites regarding this.
And God made the distinction which I didn’t notice in my cursory reading that sons will not be put to death for the sins of the fathers. Consequences will remain in effect however. The family wouldn’t be in the Land to be buried properly so they will rot. Which doesn’t seem to be a euphemism for death; it seems to be the course of nature when customs for burial can’t be followed.
I think of the Law of Causality again. God said if the fathers disobey, then they would be carried off to a distant land. Then the kids would be there too. If, then. But the sons are not to be executed because the sins of the fathers. And if the sons turn and walk with God, God will turn and walk with them.
Reflection
Context of Isaiah 26 is that God’s people are given 3 overarching statutes. Do not make idols, but do keep the Sabbath, and do reverence his sanctuary. What is the reason given? Because he is Yahweh.
What did Judah do to incite judgment? Reject the law of the LORD.
Everything that is articulated in Amos as offenses to God was covered in the giving of the Law. What should worship look like? God explained it. How should the poor and afflicted be cared for? God explained it. Instead of following sins of fathers, who should the people be following? God explained it.
And why? That is in our next passage, but let’s keep the book connected. God required obedience because he did mighty acts to bring them out of the house of slavery, out of the house of Egypt. In the process of fulfilling his promises, he also destroyed the Amorite from Israel’s land. We will see it later, but he required obedience because of his holy name.
What can I take away from this study? Even though some of it was a rabbit trail, I once again see that God is just. He reserves his wrath for the individual sinner. He does not revoke the punishment for sin. God is always just. As we know from this side of the cross and the good news of the NT, sometimes God extends mercy and grace to the sinner, which in fact is injustice. But never with God is there non-justice.
Wrap Up
What did we learn today as a Bible Study Bite? Please don’t shy away from difficulties in the text. When it looks like there is a contradiction, study it head-on. If there is something you don’t understand, dig right in and use the tools you have at hand to expose the text.
What do we know about God? He has given us this compilation of materials from multiple authors who’ve used their personalities to explain God’s truth for the ages. Since the Bible is for the purpose of revealing God, it will reveal God. It might take a little effort now since we have the passage of time and changes in language.
Meditate On It
But don’t shrink from the effort. If you can’t make heads or tails of something, that’s okay. Leave it for a bit and let what you have learned rattle around in your head for a while. This is part of why we pray before we begin our study: the Holy Spirit illuminates. I’m not saying he gives new information, he illuminates what information is already there. And I’m not saying “hidden” information. If you think you’ve stumbled onto something new, I will let you down easy.
No you haven’t.
People have been rummaging around in the scriptures for centuries. I assure you that there isn’t anything “new” in there.
Ask the Experts
Speaking of which, if there are things you can’t unravel for yourself, ask an expert. Those old, dead guys? Augustine, Luther, Calvin to name a few. If you have a question of the text, you can be pretty sure one of the ancient theologians has asked the same thing. What do they have to say on the matter?
Which is sometimes a difficult thing to do since they are ancient. So there is a passage of time and a change of language. But there are writings about them. I haven’t read Luther myself, but having read and listened to R.C. Sproul and others talk about him, I have a familiarity with who he was and what he had to say about a variety of theological matters. For example, I have points about which I agree with Luther and a couple I heartily disagree.
So over time, in addition to knowing scripture, get to know the great theologians of the past. They will help explain as well.
Thanks for studying with me today! If you’ve found anything helpful here, please like and subscribe. And if you know of other students of the Word, would you please share so we can all study and encourage each other with what we’re learning?
