Does the Earth Have Four Corners?

Yes, I know this isn't what people mean by the earth having four corners,
but I still think the picture is kind of neat. ;-)

There are four passages in the Bible that use the phrase "four corners of the earth".

• Isaiah 11:12 - "He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
• Ezekiel 7:2 - "And you, O son of man, thus says the Lord GOD to the land of Israel: An end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land." [The Hebrew word for land is eretz, which also means earth.]
• Revelation 7:1 - "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree."
• Revelation 20:8 - "...and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea."

Do any of these verses mean that the earth literally has four corners? Let's look at each of them in turn.

Isaiah 11:12

Since we are required to interpret the words in a strictly literal manner in order to believe that this refers to literal corners, we must also assume that "the dispersed of Judah" are only dispersed into those four corners or else they will only be gathered from those four corners, leaving the remaining of the banished Jews in whatever land they were banished to. This would also mean that God only names the places from which he will gather the remnants of the Northern Kingdom (Israel/Ephraim) but leaves the source of the remnants of the Southern Kingdom (Judah) unnamed. 

This seems like a very unlikely interpretation. It's more likely that the places mentioned were simply the places that came to the minds of the people of Isaiah's day when they thought of "the nations": Assyria, Egypt, Chad, Ethiopia, Babylon, Asia Minor, and Philistia. When God said that he will assemble the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth, he meant "from wherever they have been dispersed, no matter how far."

Ezekiel 7:2

Once again sticking to the literal meaning of the words, the end prophesied in this verse can only apply to the four corners of the earth, leaving the the rest of the earth alone. However, the first part of the verse strongly indicates that the prophecy is only against the land of Israel, not the whole world. So, does the land of Israel have four corners? I can't find a single map of Israel, depicting any period in its history, in which it could reasonably be described as having four corners. Most maps show borders that follow rivers, ridges, and valleys or that taper off into the wilderness and fluctuate with the political winds. There could be ten thousand corners of Israel or there could be no corners at all, depending on what period of time you want to consider. 

There is no reasonable way to interpret "four corners" in this verse as literal corners. It is clearly an idiom intended to mean "the furthest reaches of the land in every direction".

Revelation 7:1

If the "four corners" in this verse means that the earth has four literal corners, then it must also mean that the earth has four literal winds. Since it says that no wind can blow on the earth while the four winds are held back, then the earth can only have four winds. No more. I suppose if you believe the earth is square, then you also must believe that weather maps are all fake, so I can't appeal to weather maps to prove that there are more than four winds. Perhaps if you go stand on any open hilltop, you'll be able to feel that the winds come from all directions, shifting constantly, but this could also be attributed to the interplay of two or more winds coming from different directions simultaneously. 

The typical flat-earth model shows the sun and moon attached to a dome and circling in the sky above. The sun setting below the horizon is only an illusion caused by it receding into the distance. However, v2 says that the rising sun. Since we are interpreting everything literally, this can only refer to the sun rising from below the horizon in reality, not apparently. This doesn't directly address the claim of "four corners", but it does address the related claim that the earth is flat and the sun follows a circuit around the sky. Either the earth has four literal corners OR the sun rises from the horizon in one direction and sets below the horizon in the other direction, without simply receding into the distance.

Once again, the most likely intended meaning of "the four corners of the earth" in this verse is none of the above. The most natural and obvious meaning is "the whole earth", not four literal corners. It's an idiom meaning "as far as you can go in any direction".

Revelation 20

I hyper-literal interpretation of this verse requires that Gog and Magog be precisely the same as "the nations that are at the four corners of the earth", which doesn't really make a lot of sense. There are no nations today that go by those names, so they would have to be ancient names that have changed since then. Nobody who believes that the earth has four corners is able to say what nations these are. Exactly which nations are at the four corners? Is this a prophecy against Australia, Argentina, South Africa, and India? That seems more than a little absurd. Nobody in the first century Roman Empire had any clue that Australia and Argentina existed, let alone have a name for them.

The most likely intended meaning, for the fourth time, is that "the four corners of the earth" was understood by everyone in the first century to mean "the whole earth", with no implication that the earth actually has any corners.

Corners in all of these cases, even if it is translated as "quarters", just means "directions", as in North, East, South, and West. It's an idiom, like "I blew off his advice", which has nothing to do with blowing on anything, and like "He was slow as molasses", which doesn't mean anyone was actually as slow as molasses. All languages spoken by all people in all times have idioms that nobody thinks are supposed to be taken literally. This is one of them.

Even most flatearthers agree that "four corners" is just an idiom for "all parts". Those who interpret it to mean a literal four locations where two lines intersect are an extreme minority of an extreme minority. So why bother writing an article about it? Because some people still need to hear it.

Does Job 37:10 Say the Seas are Flat, Not Curved?

By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.
Job 37:10 KJV

Once more for the those seated in the mezzanine, Job was not written in English. I'm not sure it would matter if it was, though, because the King James Version is more-or-less written in modern English, but its vocabulary might be too challenging for those who think this verse says the seas are flat.

The Hebrew word translated as "is straitened" in Job 37:10 is bamutzak (במוצק). I don't have a problem with that. It's a perfectly acceptable translation. The problem is that some people think it says "straightened" rather than "straitened".

To be fair, the words are homonyms (they sound alike), but they have different etymologies. Strait means "a narrow, confined place" and comes from the Old French word estroit (Online Etymology Dictionary). Straight, on the other hand, means "not bent or curved" and comes from the Old English streht (Online Etymology Dictionary).

Job 37:10 is not saying that the waters are flat (straightened), but that the waters are confined (straitened) within their boundaries, i.e. shorelines. It's acknowledgint that God separated the water from the land in Genesis 1:9 and is completely irrelevant to the flatearth debate.

P.S. This verse isn't saying that frost literally comes out of God's mouth either.

Does Job 38:4-7 Mean the Earth Is Flat?

 

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:4-7 ESV

Several things about this passage lead some people to believe that it teaches a flat-earth cosmology.

1. V4 says the earth has a foundation.
2. V5 says the earth was measured by a line, not a curve.
3. V6 says the earth is supported by pedestals (or a foundation) and a corner stone.

Before I get to the real problem of interpreting this passage to refer to a flat earth, let's see if the actual words in these verses even say what people claim.

Foundation (v4) - If something has a foundation, that must mean it has a bottom and must be sitting on something, right? No. It doesn't even mean that in English, even though it wouldn't matter if it did. I know you think it might seem pedantic, but it seems necessary to me to remind you that the Bible wasn't written in English. The word "foundation" is not in the original text, because that's an English word. The Hebrew word used is bisdi (ביסדי), which does not mean foundation. It's actually rendered into an entire English phrase, "when I laid the foundation", but that's not a strictly literal translation. It literally means "when I founded" or "when I established" and doesn't say anything at all about what's underneath whatever was founded. The root word yasad can refer to a physical foundation of stone, but it doesn't have to. It can refer to the establishment of anything that has a beginning, such as the nation of Egypt in Exodus 9:18 or the Chaldeans in Habakkuk 1:12.

Line (v5) - The Hebrew word for line here is kav (קו), which refers to a string used to measure something. It has no relationship to the mathematical concept of a straight line in English. A kav, in this context, is essentially just a measuring tape. It can be used to measure a property line, a waistline, or the circumference of a bowl. In fact, it is used in precisely that manner in 2 Chronicles 4:2: "Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line (kav) of thirty cubits measured its circumference."

Bases, pedestals, or foundations (v6) - You got me on this one. The word adeniah (אדניה) literally means pedestals or bases. Keep reading, though. Don't get too excited yet.

Corner stone (v6) - Here's another one that means exactly what is claimed. Eben pinatah (אבן פנתה)  literally means corner-stone. But again, don't count your chickens before they hatch. (No, that doesn't mean I think you must have chickens. It's just an expression.)

Two out of four wouldn't be bad if we were playing the lottery, but this is Biblical interpretation, and that's a really bad ratio in this arena. Even so, let's talk about bases, foundations, and corner stones for a moment.

Clearly, Job 38:6 says that the earth's bases were sunk (into what?) and its cornerstone was laid, but does that mean that the earth actually has bases and a cornerstone? 

Only if vs 8-10 means the sea has bars and doors and came out of someone's womb. I suppose if you are a true believer in the Olympian deities, then you could argue that this supports the myth that Gaia gave parthenogenic birth to Pontus, her future lover and the primordial sea god, but that's hardly a biblically sound position to take, and it doesn't account for the bars and doors.

The only sensical reading of Job 38:8-10 is that God is using non-literal poetic language to speak of creating and managing the earth's oceans, not that he is describing the actual process of that creation. The Sports Page in the newspaper must pose quite a challenge for anyone who can't agree with that. "Nebraska Warming after Latest Cold Finish" must be a post-Ragnarok weather report....but there we go with the paganism again.

I kid, but what else can you do on a topic like flatearth? Humor is therapeutic.

Obviously Job 38:8-10 was never meant to be a literal description of the creation of the oceans. This means that vs 4-7 don't have to be entirely literal either, and it's most likely they aren't. God's artistry isn't limited to the natural world. He loves beauty in all forms. He wanted the furnishings of the Wilderness Tabernacle to be beautiful. He gave Abraham a beautiful wife and David a beautiful voice. Apparently, he also loves beautiful poetry and dramatic prose.

PaRDeS and the Quadriga

The Jewish hermeneutical¹ system of PaRDeS is fairly well known in Torah-observant circles, but few people know where it came from. Even fewer know that a competing Christian system was developed and formalized at about the same time.

PaRDeS is a method of interpreting Scriptures in which every (or almost every) passage is assumed to have four levels of meaning:

• Peshat - the plain, literal meaning that the original author intended to convey to his original audience. It still requires some common sense and doesn't mean that everything written is literally true. For example, when David wrote, "YHWH is my shepherd; I shall not want," he didn't mean that God is literally a man guarding a herd of four-footed livestock and that he (David) was a one of those four-footed beasts and would never lack anything at all, especially grass to eat and a stream to drink from. Obviously, David meant for us to understand that God is like a shepherd and that he is like a sheep, and this metaphor is still part of the Peshat (also spelled P'shat) meaning.
• Remez - the allegorical meaning that is suggested by the text, but not spelled out. For example, Noah's ark and the basket that sheltered Moses on the Nile river are both coated with pitch and protect their contents from both drowning and wickedness. The word for pitch is related to the word for atonement, a spiritual covering. One Remez interpretation of these stories could be that God will provide those who are willing to trust him completely with a spiritual atonement--a Messiah--that will protect them from eternal destruction.
• Derash - the moral or ethical meaning derived from a passage. In the case of Noah's and Moses' arks, a Derash (also spelled Drash) interpretation would be that we should simply obey God's instructions in troubled times, and everything will work out for the best in the end, even if we can't see how.
• Sod - the mystical, esoteric meaning of a passage. Sod ascribes deep, hidden meanings to what seem to be straightforward statements. For example, it may employ numerology, "Hebrew word pictures", or "Equidistant Letter Sequencing" to find hidden codes in the Biblical text. Sod often asserts that the real meaning of the text is the opposite of the plain (Peshat) meaning. For example, in the story of the serpent tempting Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, one Peshat interpretation says that God actually wanted Adam and Eve to eat of it, despite telling them not to. He sent the serpent to urge them to rebel so that, through the experience of hardship and resistance to divine will, they could develop into the gods that the Creator planned for them to be all along.

Although the techniques of PaRDeS have a very long history, the hermeneutical system was formalized by Jewish mystics in the twelfth century. It also has some pretty clear problems. The Peshat level is common sense, and the Derash level can be helpful so long as it takes the whole Biblical text into account, but the Remez and Sod levels can get a person into a lot of theological trouble, especially the Sod which often makes a mockery of the Peshat.

The Quadriga, a parallel Christian hermeneutical system, was formalized at the same time that PaRDeS was first becoming popular among Jewish teachers. I suspect that both systems were developed in response to the other. Just as in PaRDeS, the Quadriga subjects every (or almost every) passage to four levels of meaning:

• Literal - the plain, literal meaning that the original author intended to convey to his original audience. Precisely the same meaning as Peshat.
• Allegorical - the allegorical meaning that is suggested by the text, but not spelled out. Essentially the same as Remez, but usually with an emphasis on Christological typology.
• Tropological - the moral or ethical meaning derived from a passage. Precisely the same meaning as Derash.
• Anagogical - the mystical or eschatological meaning of a passage. This is similar to Sod, but very rarely asserts any meaning that is opposed to the literal, at least not to how the interpreter understands the literal meaning, which can itself be flawed. The Anagogical interpretation deals with the unknowable nature of God, the ultimate fulfillment of prophecy, the spiritual realities that lie behind the physical and apparent universe, the fate of the dead, and existence beyond the Final Judgment.

Both systems are rooted in very ancient--and even common sense--methods of interpreting any religious text. Both systems also have the same basic flaws that make them prone to abuse by false teachers who want to impose their own ideas onto the text. Gnostics, Kabbalists, antinomians, and metanomians all live in the Sod/Anagogical level of interpretation and force the Peshat/Literal to conform to their mystical eisegesis².

The Bible is an organic text, a collection of works that were spoken and written by and to people in specific cultural, political, and linguistic circumstances. Each work was written for its own purposes and in its own style. Even as they were guided by the Holy Spirit in communicating their messages, each author wrote from his own perspective to people experiencing their own circumstances. It seems extraordinarily misguided to expect every passage of the Bible to fit into the same interpretive framework. Letters must be read as letters, histories as histories, etc., with each work and author adding metaphor, poetry, allusion, and apocalyptic imagery as God guided and his message required.

All systematic theologies eventually fail because the Bible wasn't written as a system. The message of the Bible is cohesive and consistent, but it is not a monolithic text of mystical philosophy.

¹ Hermeneutical - "of or pertaining to interpretation; exegetical; explanatory; as, hermeneutic theology, or the art of expounding the Scriptures" (Webster's 1913 English Dictionary)

² Eisegesis - "the introduction by an interpreter of his own ideas into a text under explication." (-Ologies & -Isms. (2008).)

See Tom Steele's more detailed discussion of PaRDeS at Truth Ignited.

An Anonymous Commentary on Jude

Someone shared this commentary on Jude with me, and I'd like your input, whoever you are.

My impression is that it's not bad, but nothing to write home about either. It seems to be trying too hard to avoid anything especially controversial, even to the point of not really saying anything very profound either. 

Commentary on the Epistle of Jude

by Anonymous

Overview:

Yehudah (Jude), a servant and brother of Yeshua (Jesus) and Yaakov (James), wrote this letter in haste--hence its brevity--warning his readers about the dangers of false teachers and apostates among the believers in Yeshua. His message is a passionate plea to contend earnestly for the faith against anyone who might lead believers astray, perverting the grace of God into licentiousness and denying Yeshua's authority. Jude’s focus on apostasy and judgment draws heavily from the Hebrew scripture and contemporary apocalyptic literature, which he probably intended to evoke thoughts of demonic forces and spiritual warfare.

Jude identified himself as the brother of James, connecting him to the well-known leader of the Jerusalem church, but this obliquely also identifies him as the brother of Yeshua, a subtle reminder to his readers that he isn't speaking from ignorance or speculation. He had intimate knowledge of the Messiah, his life, and his teachings. Though Jude did not directly claim Apostleship on the same level as James and Peter, his message carries an authority by association that would resonate with those familiar with the Apostles and the Hebrew scriptures.

Jude’s epistle warns, encourages, and blesses.

V1-2: The Calling and Blessing of the Saints

Jude addresses his readers as those "called" and "beloved in God the Father," underscoring the divine election and love bestowed upon them. This reflects Paul's sentiments in Romans 1:7, where believers are set apart as saints, not due to their own merits but because of God’s calling. The greeting of mercy, peace, and love echoes the deep Hebrew understanding of God’s covenantal blessings, extending beyond mere feelings to a holistic well-being that results from being in right relationship with God.

V3-4: Contending for the Faith

Jude’s original intention was to write a more general letter about salvation, but the urgency of false teaching compels him to focus on exhorting believers to "contend for the faith" delivered once for all. This statement places a strong emphasis on the immutability of the Gospel. Here, the term “faith” refers not just to belief but to the entire body of teachings and practices passed down from Yeshua and the Apostles (2 Timothy 2:2). The intrusion of "ungodly" individuals perverting grace recalls Paul's warnings in Romans about those who turn liberty into license (Romans 6:1-2). Jude’s emphasis is on preserving the purity of the faith.

V5-7: Historical Warnings of Judgment

Jude offers three historical examples of apostasy and its consequences: the unbelief of those saved from Egypt, the angels who sinned, and Sodom and Gomorrah. The use of these examples is consistent with Jewish midrashic traditions, where Scripture is applied to current situations to warn and instruct the people of God. In each case, Jude points to a form of rebellion—whether it’s disbelief, overstepping divine boundaries, or moral corruption—that resulted in divine judgment. 

• Israel’s disbelief (Numbers 14) serves as a reminder that being part of the covenant community does not guarantee salvation if one falls into unbelief and disobedience.
• The angels who abandoned their proper dwelling (Genesis 6:1-4, also referenced in 2 Peter 2:4) symbolize those who reject God's established order. Jude’s emphasis on their punishment highlights the severity of defying divine authority.
• Sodom and Gomorrah are vivid examples of immorality and a rejection of divine law, illustrating how sexual perversion and moral decay lead to destruction. The connection to “eternal fire” underscores the irreversible consequences of rebellion against God's moral standards.

V8-10: Characteristics of Apostates

Jude identifies the apostates as dreamers who defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. The reference to "dreamers" might suggest individuals who claim special revelations or visions as the basis for their teachings, much like the false prophets criticized by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 23:25-32). Rejecting authority can be seen as a rejection of Yeshua’s lordship and the apostolic teaching, while "blaspheming the glorious ones" refers to disrespecting spiritual beings or divine matters. This is contrasted with the Archangel Michael's restraint when contending with Satan over Moses' body, demonstrating that even angels respect divine authority (Deuteronomy 34:5-6, implied in Jewish tradition).

V11-13: The Way of Cain, Balaam, and Korah

Jude’s use of three Old Testament figures—Cain, Balaam, and Korah—emphasizes the different forms of rebellion seen in the apostates. 

• Cain symbolizes jealousy and selfishness leading to murder and separation from God (Genesis 4).
• Balaam represents greed and the perversion of spiritual gifts for personal gain (Numbers 22-24).
• Korah reflects the rejection of legitimate authority and the desire for self-exaltation (Numbers 16).

Jude’s poetic language (e.g., "waterless clouds" and "wandering stars") paints a vivid picture of these false teachers as empty, unstable, and doomed to destruction. The references to nature—trees without fruit and twice dead—reinforce the idea that these individuals are spiritually barren and devoid of the life that comes from being rooted in Yeshua.

V14-16: Enoch’s Prophecy

Jude cites a prophecy from the apocryphal Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9), a text well-known in Jewish apocalyptic tradition. This highlights the seriousness of the coming judgment, where the Lord will execute justice on the ungodly. Jude’s use of this text is not an endorsement of Enoch as Scripture but serves to emphasize the theme of divine judgment, which was prevalent in Jewish thought. It serves as a solemn reminder that no one, not even angels or mighty men, can escape the consequences of rejecting God’s authority.

V17-19: Apostolic Warnings

Jude reminds the believers of the Apostles' teachings, warning that scoffers will arise in the last days, following their own ungodly passions. This reiterates Paul’s warnings in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and Peter’s in 2 Peter 3:3, both of which foretell the rise of false teachers in the end times. The emphasis on sensuality shows that these individuals live by their desires rather than by the Spirit, causing divisions within the community. Jude highlights the communal responsibility to remain vigilant and united in the face of these challenges.

V20-23: Exhortation to Persevere

Jude calls the believers to build themselves up in their most holy faith and to pray in the Holy Spirit. The emphasis here is on personal and communal growth in faith, ensuring that the love of God sustains them while they await the mercy of Yeshua leading to eternal life. Jude’s encouragement to "snatch others from the fire" shows the balance between judgment and mercy, emphasizing the need for discernment in dealing with those who are wavering or caught in sin (James 5:19-20). Mercy and fear are both necessary in confronting falsehood, reflecting a balanced approach of grace and truth.

V24-25: Doxology

Jude concludes with a beautiful doxology, reminding the believers of God's ability to preserve them and present them blameless before His glory. The focus is on God's sovereignty and power, who alone can sustain the believer through the trials of apostasy. This doxology offers reassurance that despite the dangers of false teachings, God is faithful and will complete His work in those who remain steadfast in the faith.

Genesis 2:1 and the Expanding Universe

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 2:1 ESV

I read on a website that "finished" in this verse means that the universe absolutely can't be expanding. When the text says that the heavens and the earth were finished, that means.... Well, honestly, I'm not sure how this verse could be interpreted to mean the universe isn't expanding. 

The Hebrew word for "to finish" is kalah (כּלה). It can also mean to accomplish, to cause to end, or to destroy. We know that it can't mean "to cause to an end" or "to destroy" in this context because we can observe that the heavens and the earth still exist.

What's that you say? Observation of the physical universe can help us to correctly interpret the Bible? Why, yes! It most certainly can. 

If observations can definitively show that the universe is expanding, then we can also rule out that kalah could mean the universe is not expanding. Of course, no observations can definitively prove that today. We can only make indirect measurements, calculations, and reasonable hypotheses, unlike the shape and dimensions of the earth, which we can measure and prove definitively.

We don't have to rely only on extra-Biblical evidence to show that kalah doesn't have to mean "finally completed with no possibility of expansion" in Genesis 2:1. Kalah is used more than 200 times in the Old Testament. For example, Genesis 27:30 says that Isaac finished (kalah) blessing Jacob, but just a few verses later in Genesis 28:1, Isaac blessed Jacob again. In 1 Samuel 18:1, David finished (kalah) speaking to Saul, but he spoke to him again in that same chapter. Clearly the word doesn't mean "finally completed with no possibility of expansion" in either of these instances. In fact, it almost never means "finished" with that kind of static finality.

The heavens are constantly moving. The earth is constantly changing. "Finished" in Genesis 2:1 only refers to God's work of creation, not to any ongoing processes that might have been set in motion during that creation. This verse doesn't support a static universe, geocentrism, or flatearth.

Genesis 1 and the Shape of the Earth

I recently saw an argument that since the earth was created before the sun in Genesis 1, the earth must be flat. How does someone who thinks like that even have meaningful conversations with other people? It's like saying, "My son was born before my daughter, therefore my daughter is a tree." The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

Maybe if they had argued that Genesis 1:2 says "the earth was without form", therefore the earth can't be a sphere, it would at least have some kind of internal logic. However, just like all human language, no matter how technical and precise, the Hebrew of Genesis 1 uses idioms and figurative language, which is then translated into another language (e.g. English) that uses idioms and figurative language.

The earth was without form (תהו) and void (בהו), and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:2 ESV

"Without form" is the Hebrew word tohu, which can mean formless, but can also mean unorganized, pointless, or useless. It rarely refers to anything's actual shape. "Void" is the word bohu (notice the rhyming?), which means empty, pretty much exactly what void would mean in the 17th century English of the KJV. It's not a technical term referring to the vacuum of space, but empty like the Sahara desert is void of trees.

The picture that Genesis 1 draws of the earth immediately after its creation is of a muddy place without clear delineation between land and sea, dark, useless, and lifeless. You, the reader, have to read into the text your own idea of how the universe works before you can find even a hint of the earth's shape. The order of creation is completely irrelevant to the flatearth debate.

Musk, Grok, and God

This morning, Elon Musk posted a short poem about one positive aspect of religion, in general:

 

Curious to see how Grok would respond to a question about the subjective nature of religion that attempts to connect with an objective God, I asked it:

"If there is a real creator god, does it make sense for individual people to define him in whatever way feels right to them?"

Grok's reply is interesting, but like all human-programmed AIs, it ultimately fails to give the logically inevitable answer because it is trying to be inoffensive:

The question of how individuals define or conceptualize a creator god touches on deep philosophical, theological, and psychological dimensions. Here's a breakdown of considerations: 1. **Subjectivity of Experience**: Human experience is inherently subjective. People's understanding of a creator god can be influenced by their culture, personal experiences, emotional needs, and intellectual frameworks. Given this, it might be argued that defining god in a way that feels right could be a natural and perhaps necessary process for individuals to connect with the divine in a meaningful way. 2. **Religious and Philosophical Traditions**: Many religious traditions offer specific doctrines about the nature of god, which might not align with personal definitions. However, within these traditions, there's often room for interpretation and personal relationship with the divine. Mystics, for instance, often describe experiences of god that transcend doctrinal definitions. 3. **Theological Perspectives**: - **Apophasis (Negative Theology)**: Some theological traditions suggest that god is beyond human comprehension, and thus, any definition we impose is inherently limited. From this viewpoint, personal definitions might be seen as valid attempts to grasp the ineffable. - **Panentheism and Pantheism**: These perspectives might argue that god is in everything or that everything is part of god, which could support a more flexible, personal definition. 4. **Psychological Impact**: Defining god in a way that resonates personally can have profound psychological benefits, providing comfort, purpose, and a moral framework. This personal connection might be more about fulfilling existential needs rather than achieving an objective truth. 5. **Philosophical Considerations**: - **Pluralism**: The idea that there might be multiple valid ways to understand or experience the divine suggests that individual definitions could coexist without one necessarily being more correct than another. - **Pragmatism**: If a belief in a certain kind of god helps an individual live a better, more ethical, or happier life, then from a pragmatic standpoint, that definition has value. 6. **Critiques and Challenges**: - **Relativism**: If everyone defines god differently, does this lead to a form of relativism where the concept of god loses any objective meaning or impact? - **Conflict**: Different personal definitions can lead to conflicts, especially when these definitions are seen as universally applicable or when they intersect with societal laws and norms. 7. **Ultimate Reality**: If there is a creator god, this entity might exist independently of human perception. Thus, while personal definitions might be psychologically or socially useful, they might not reflect the actual nature of this being, if such a being exists. In conclusion, while it might make sense from various human-centric perspectives for individuals to define a creator god in ways that resonate with them personally, this approach also raises questions about the nature of truth, the essence of divinity, and the implications for interfaith or philosophical dialogue. Whether or not this approach aligns with any objective reality of a creator god remains a matter of belief, speculation, or faith.

We have a genetic drive to worship a deity just as much as we have a genetic drive to procreate. The spiritual drive is just harder to identify and satisfy because it's not connected to a specific physical organ. People tend to satisfy both drives in the easiest--and therefore usually the worst--ways. If there is a real Creator God, he can't be whatever we want him to be. His existence and character doesn't depend on us. He is what he is, and the best connection we can have with him must conform to his design, not our desire.

Torah People on a Mission for Yeshua

Hebrew Roots, Messianic, Torah-Pursuant...whatever label you want to slap on them, these ministries are doing exactly what so many people say that Torah people won't do. I haven't vetted all of them, so before you get involved, you'll need to do your own research.

The Binji Uganda, https://thebinji.com/mission/

Messianic Ministry & Mission Africa, https://ministryandmissionafrica.org/

Vintage Skills International, https://vintageskillsinternational.com/about-us/

Shekinah House, Launceston, Tasmania, https://www.facebook.com/ShekinahHouse777/

Kaleb House, women's and children's shelter, https://www.kalebhouse.org/

Grindstone Ministries, disaster relief and construction services, https://grindstoneministries.com/

Kehilat Bethlehem, India, https://kehilatbethlechem.com/

African Messianic Outreach, https://africanmessianicoutreach.org/

Beth Yeshua International, https://www.bethyeshuainternational.org/missions/

ProjectE15, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, https://www.facebook.com/ProjectE15

Chiasm on God's Faithfulness to the Hebrews in Exodus 2-4

This chiasm was, in part, illustrated in a series of videos by Rabbi Fohrman at Aleph Beta, called "Why Did God Try to Kill Moses"? I don't entirely agree with Rabbi Fohrman's breakout of the chiasm, though. I think a couple of his points are weak and that the chiasm is more detailed in the center than he talked about. Maybe he's aware of that and just simplified it for the video.

One thing we can learn from this is that, like the burning bush that was not consumed by the fire, no matter what afflictions the Hebrews suffer, God will preserve them through it for the sake of his promises to the Patriarchs. 

Chiasm on 40 Years in Deuteronomy 1:1-3

• V1 - The words
• dabar Moshe kol Israel (spoke Moses to all Israel)
• V2 - echad asher yom (eleven days)
• V3 - vayehi b'arba'im (Fortieth Year)
• bashtey asher chodesh (eleventh month)
• dabar Moshe el bnei Israel, k'kol (spoke Moses to the sons of Israel, all...)
• Commandments of YHWH

In Scripture, the number 40 is associated with periods of transformation and preparation for ministry. Moses spent 40 years in Midian preparing for his confrontation with Pharaoh. Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness preparing to occupy the Promised Land. Yeshua spent 40 days int he wilderness preparing for his ministry.

The number 11 is often associated with an apostate Israel, the 12 tribes with one removed because of sin. This is also reflected in the 12 disciples without Judas.

The direct words of God (prophecy), the instruction of Moses concerning those words (teaching), and even disobedience and apostacy (11) in the camp all work together for the transformation of the Hebrew people into who God needs them to be in order to take the Promised Land from the Canaanites (40). This is a pattern for us. We shouldn't seek out sin and heresy, but we do need to acknowledge that conflict within our communities and being forced to deal with sin and heresy is a big part of our journey to becoming the people God needs us to be.

Which Canon?

 "Canon" is a measuring rod. In the context of Christian literature, the Canon is the core set of writings by which all other writings and teachings are to be measured, AKA the Bible, and different sects of Christianity consider slightly different sets of books to be valid canon.

So, it seems like a valid question for skeptics to ask "Which canon?" when you talk about the reliability of the Christian Canon. But let's think that through... If Canon 1 contains 66 books, Canon 2 contains the same plus 5, and Canon 3 contains the same plus 10, the only sure, reliable canon among the three sets is the first and smallest. Everyone agrees on the contents of Canon 1, while many people believe that the extra books in Canons 2 and 3 contradict the contents of Canon 1. Of course, whether they do contradict or not can be a matter of opinion, but you won't go wrong by sticking with Canon 1. That doesn't mean that the books included in Canons 2 and 3 aren't inspired or valuable. It just means that Canon 1 is a universally recognized rod for measuring the reliability of extra-Biblical works, even those other books included in some sectarian Bibles.

Highest Mileage SUVs

It's difficult getting real reliability ratings for vehicles. The professional review sites rarely rate anything more than a few years old, but I really want to know which vehicles are more likely to last 200k miles, not just 30k.

So I went to cars.com, searched for SUVs within 250 miles of my location and then sorted them so that the highest mileage vehicles were listed first, then I counted how many of each make were in the top 40. Of the 40 SUVs listed with highest mileage (all of them over 198k), there were more Toyotas and Hondas than anything else. The only thing that really surprised me is that Jeeps weren't at the bottom of the list.

• Toyota 11
• Honda 7
• Chevy 4
• Jeep 3
• Cadillac 3
• GMC 2
• Infinity 2
• Nissan 2
• Mazda 1
• Lincoln 2
• Hummer 1
• Volvo 1
• Mitsubishi 1

Draw your own conclusions from this unscientific survey of a limited data set.

A Few Thoughts on Paul's Epistle to the Romans

These are my ongoing study notes on the book of Romans. I might change my mind about some things and will likely edit these notes extensively through the course of this study. Consider it a rough draft.

The Common Sense Bible Study online community is going through the book of Romans on Thursday nights. Join the conversation here. 

Initial Thoughts

• Paul was a Jewish lawyer (rabbi is a later term created in Babylon) and a Pharisee all his life. A student of Gamaliel. 
• Paul can't create new laws. He cannot speak contrary to Yeshua or Moses.
• Written before he went to Rome. The congregation there was established by someone else. 55-56 AD?
• What is Systematic Theology? Not Romans!
• Writing to explain the theology of adoption into Israel.
• Paul as the thirteenth Apostle fits the pattern of Israel as 11, 12, and 13 tribes.

The Literary Chiastic Structure of Romans

Romans 1

V1 - Doulos (δουλος) literally means "slave". Greeks might have differentiated between a slave and a bondservant, but a Jew wouldn't see a difference in the context of a Hebrew enslaved to another Hebrew. Except, that is, for the case of the slave in Exodus 21:5-6 who devotes his life to his master for the sake of his family, and that is how Paul seems to be identifying himself. This is underscored by his willingness, expressed later in the letter, to give up his own salvation for the sake of his fellow Jews.

It's notable that he never refers to himself as Saul in his letters, perhaps emphasizing his new identity in Christ, as opposed to his old identity as an enforcer for the Jewish religious authorities. Paul's apostleship was not self-assumed; it was a divine calling, rooted in his obedience to the One who sent him. He says that he was "called an apostle", because his commission was not of his own choice. He was on a mission for another master when Yeshua intercepted him.

Paul was saying that he was a personal possession and emissary of Yeshua due to one of three reasons: 1) He was in debt to Yeshua beyond hope of paying it back, 2) He sold himself to Yeshua to pay a debt to someone else, or 3) He was a slave for one of the two prior reasons, but voluntarily submitted to his master for life out of love.

As an apostolos (αποστολος), Paul is not merely a disciple but an agent sent with the authority of the one who sent him. His being "set apart" (aforismenos, αφωρισμενος) likely alludes both to his religious identity as a Pharisee, a group whose name means "separated," and his current role, distinct from the world, to preach the Gospel of the risen Messiah. This setting apart reflects the broader call of God’s people to be separate from the world for God's purposes, as seen in Psalm 4 and Isaiah 40:9-11.

V2 - What is the Gospel that was promised and where?

• Isaiah 40:9-11 - Jerusalem is summoned to proclaim the Good News of the arrival of the Almighty with great power, rescuing his people from their oppressors and gently gathering them together.
• Isaiah 52:7-10 - The Good News is a proclamation of peace, salvation, and God's reign. The messenger of good news declares that God's redemption of his people has cone in a manner that no one from the nations can deny.
• Isaiah 61:1-3 - The Prophet proclaims the Good News of redemption, healing, and full restoration of the people of Israel.
• Nahum 1:15 - The Good News is the celebration of God's appointed times without interference form the nations, the people of Israel keeping God's covenants, and the wicked being completely removed from their midst.

V3 - Paul was specifically commissioned to announce the reestablishment of the throne of David in the person of Yeshua, no matter what the cost might be to himself. See Acts 9:15-16.

Yeshua must be an heir of David in order to be Israel’s king according to the Davidic covenant described in 2 Samuel 23:1-7, 2 Chronicles 21:7, and Psalm 89:2-4, and he must have a king’s authority over Israel in order to be her Messiah. God counted tribal membership in Israel patrilineally (from father to son), so Yeshua could not have been a son of David by the most strict, traditional reckoning. However, two factors alleviate this problem.

• First, Yeshua was Joseph’s adopted son, and throughout the Scriptures, God recognizes adoption for the purposes of tribal membership and inheritance. See the Millennial prophecy of land division in Ezekiel 47:21-23 and consider the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with the native Israelites and were given an inheritance alongside the native born at that time also. It seems that the only exception to that rule concerns the Levitical priesthood.
• Second, Yeshua’s mother Mary was also of the house of David. Many scholars believe that the genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is Mary’s and not Joseph’s. When it says “being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, of Heli”, it means that he was adopted by Joseph who was the son-in-law of Heli. (Note that the Greek text doesn’t say “son of Heli”, but only “of Heli”. “Son” is inserted by most translators, but should not be, in my opinion.) Although this is a matrilineal connection, it reinforces Yeshua’s adoption into the house of David by Joseph.

“According to the flesh” refers to Yeshua’s genetic descent from Mary as well as his legal adoption by Joseph, since it is still a matter of physical tribal identity, not a spiritual matter. Adoption would probably be even more significant to Paul’s Roman audience than to the Roman Jews. Recall that Augustus was actually the grandson of Julius Caesar’s sister, but was made to be Julius’ heir by adoption.

V4 - Paul's authority wasn't just given by a foreign king, but by God himself. By whom was Yeshua declared to be the Son of God? By God himself in Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:35. "Declared to be the Son of God" is an explicit statement of Yeshua's authority even over Caesar, an especially relevant point for a Roman in Rome.

Not only was Yeshua's claim to the throne backed by the Gospel accounts and by the Apostles, most of whom were still alive at the time Paul wrote Romans, but it was backed by his pedigree in the house of David, which would have been common knowledge to the residents of Nazareth and Bethlehem, although certainly maligned by his enemies. His claim to divinity was backed by displays of power in a spirit of holiness, not violence or showmanship, and by his resurrection from the dead. These things didn't make him the Son of God, but declared him so in the sight of all the nations as hinted at in the Gospel prophecies of Isaiah. Paul was called from one thing to another (v1), while Yeshua was revealed to be who he had always been.

V5 - "For the sake of his name" because the inclusion of the nations in the New Covenant was promised to Abraham and through the Prophets, so God sent Paul in order to fulfill that promise. See Zechariah 8:23.

Paul is not writing this letter in cooperation with anyone besides his scribe Tertius (see 16:22), so it's possible that the "we" in "We have received grace and apostleship" includes the believers in Rome, however the "including you" in the beginning of the next verse probably indicates that he means his fellow Apostles. Although all people who are called to be Yeshua's are also called to be his apostles, even if they are not especially separated out for a grand purpose, but those specifically called by Yeshua himself are unique in their Apostolic calling. See Acts 2:42-43, for example, where the believers in Jerusalem "devoted themselves to the teachings of the Apostles", which would make little sense if all believers were regularly called "apostles".

"Grace and apostleship" are always given to enable the Apostle to bring about repentance and faithfulness among those to whom he is sent. Such repentance doesn't refer to merely changing one's mind, but to changing one's heart, leading to a total transformation of the person, including his outward behavior.

"Obedience of faith" (not "obedience to the faith") is that obedience brought about by faith. See the same phrase in 16:26, where the obedience is "of faith", but to God. This obedience was prophesied in Psalm 67 in which the nations of the earth learn God's ways (read: commandments), yielding a great harvest from all over the world. The Psalmist explains, as Paul hints in Romans 1:16 and 3:2, that the blessings of God's election, Law, and covenants came first to Israel so that, through them, all the world might be blessed by learning God's ways in accordance with his promise to Abraham in Genesis 12. This obedience was also prophesied more explicitly in Isaiah 2:2-4.

"Obedience of faith" also refers to the obedience that is promised by faith. When we first commit our souls to Yeshua, we don't immediately become perfectly obedient to all of his commandments. Our sins are forgiven, and we become his, but the perfection of our walk is a long process that we see in the present only through eyes of faith that trust in his ongoing grace and the synergy of the written word, the Holy Spirit, and our determination to remain faithful. In this sense, our obedience is like the Kingdom of Heaven and eternal life: already and not yet. It is already ours, but not yet fully in our possession.

V6 - Paul is not addressing a select group of Romans who have been called as if there are some in Rome who are not called. Rather, he assures the believers in Rome that they have also been called, just as all those in Jerusalem and Antioch have been called. We are all called to belong to Yeshua, but only those among the nations who respond to the call with the obedience of faith will be counted among the people of Israel.

V7 - Although this letter was written to address specific problems within the Roman assembly (hence “to all those in Rome”), Paul also intended for it to be general enough to address all Jews and Gentiles who might find themselves in similar circumstances or with similar questions.

Because God loves you, whether Jew or Gentile, Roman or American, you are called to be set apart (saints), which never refers to an inward state that has no outward effect. Holiness is an inward state that has profound effect on your speech, behavior, and viewpoint. We are called to be holy in every respect.

“Grace to you” in the second half of the verse is probably not meant to be separate from “peace” as if the grace was from Paul and the peace from God. That sentence could probably have been written as “Grace and peace to you from God...” instead of “Grace to you and peace from God...” without changing the meaning. The grace that enables forgiveness can only come from God, because he is the only one capable or authorized to forgive. He is the ultimate aggrieved party in our sins, and only he can remove our guilt and restore peace in our relationship with him.

Paul refers to "God our Father" to emphasize that God is the father of all disciples of Yeshua, as we all are through the spiritual rebirth enabled by his death and resurrection. The separation of “God our Father” and “The Lord Jesus Christ” might lead some to believe that Paul did not believe in Yeshua’s divinity, but that is only because we are so prone to taking snippets of Paul’s writings out of context, as if he were writing a collection of one-line proverbs for modern Americans. Paul’s separation of these terms no more implies that Yeshua is not God, than Galatians 6:11 implies that Paul’s hand is not Paul. Elsewhere, Paul clearly speaks of Yeshua as God. See Colossians 2:9 and Titus 2:13, for example. When he seems to speak of them as separate entities, "God" always refers to "God the Father" as in this verse, as distinct from "God the Son", who is our firstborn, elder brother in relation to the Father.

V8 - "Through Jesus Christ" - Yeshua is the mediator of the New Covenant and the only way to the Father. Our prayers are directed to the Father, but through the mediation, righteousness, and authority of Yeshua. Paul thanks God because ultimately our faith grows through the power and influence of God, not merely through our own effort. He does not thank the Son, but God through the Son. That doesn't mean that the Son isn't God, but that he is the conduit through which we connect to the Father.

Proton (πρωτον) at the beginning of the verse should be understood to mean "firstly" as in "before I say anything else" and not “first” as in the first of a series. Paul is reassuring his readers that they are important and recognized, that his sole purpose in writing isn't to rebuke them. Like Christ, he corrects because he loves. Good teachers and leaders often precede correction with encouragement.

"All the world" at the end of the verse is hyperbole. Obviously, the faith of the Roman disciples had not been proclaimed in the Americas or Australia and probably not even so far as Crimea or Britain. Luke 2:1 uses a similar phrase in describing the extent of the Augustan registration. Although the Romans traded with peoples as far away as China, nobody would have thought Luke meant Augustus decreed that the Chinese people should be registered. Paul means “all the world” in the same general sense as we might say, "Everyone knows that Jerry is amazing," although we are perfectly aware that the vast majority of people in the world have never even heard of Jerry, let alone of his character. All of Paul’s letters must be read as they were written: in a conversational tone full of idioms, hyperbole, and ambiguity.

V9 - “For God is my witness” indicates the making of an oath. Paul isn’t contradicting what Yeshua said in Matthew 5:37. Yeshua, like Solomon, was teaching principles, not technical details of how to keep the Law. In other words, he was saying, "Don't complicate things. Don't look for loopholes. If you say something is true, be sure that it's true," and not necessarily that one should never take an oath. Sometimes a solemn or forceful oath is appropriate if it helps your listeners to accept the truth of what you are saying.

Only God knows what Paul prayed in private, so who else could bear witness to what he prayed? Paul frequently appeals to the witness of God to confirm a statement. See Romans 8:16, 2 Corinthians 1:23, Philippians 1:8, and 1 Thessalonians 2:5 for examples.

"I serve with my spirit" means to serve with his deepest being. It has the same meaning as "worship in spirit and truth". Paul serves the purpose of his commission, the spreading of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Yeshua, with his whole being.

V10 - Why did Paul pray so much for the Roman believers? Probably because he knew they had been leaderless for years, especially since Aquila and Priscilla had left. Paul’s primary mission was to bring the Gospel to places that had not yet heard it, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 52:15 as he discusses in the corresponding element on the other end of the Romans Chiasm in 15:20-22. Since Rome already had an established congregation, visiting them was necessarily a lower priority, but they were still on his mind, so he prayed for them continually instead.

V11 - Paul says that his reason for wanting to visit is to impart some spiritual gift to strengthen (stirikhthenai, στηριχθηναι, could also mean to confirm or establish) them. Elsewhere in his writings, Paul speaks of character traits, skills, and miracles as spiritual gifts, but these are gifts of the Holy Spirit to individuals, not to entire congregations. In this case, he probably isn’t referring to an ability to work miracles, prophesy, etc., but to a gift of instruction that will correct their path, bring unity to their congregation, and cohesiveness to their doctrine. This corporate strengthening is the purpose of the gifts and commissions given to individual believers as described in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 and Ephesians 4:11-13.

V12 - The KJV translates simparahklithenai (συμπαρακληθηναι) as “to be comforted together”, and that might have been a good translation in the 17^th century, and it isn’t entirely wrong for today, but it isn’t quite right either. Paul isn’t talking about alleviating someone’s mourning or suffering, but about exhortation or imparting confidence.

The encouragement that Paul speaks of for himself is the assurance that the Roman assembly has been returned to a healthier, more edifying path. He isn't just intending to bring them "some spiritual gift" (v11), but to correct their quickly drifting doctrine and widening divisions. In this way, they will both be strengthened in their faith.

V13 - The Roman believers probably felt somewhat abandoned when most or all of their leaders had to leave Rome and some of them never returned. Paul was reassuring them that they were not forgotten, that he had every intention to visit them personally when circumstances allowed.

Paul gives three reasons for wanting to visit the Roman assembly: First, to strengthen the Romans in their faith and maturity. Second, to assure himself that they are on a good spiritual path. Third, to show a return on his own balance sheet for his investment in their spiritual growth. That third reason might seem prideful, but consider the parable of the talents. God rewards those who use his resources for the expansion of his Kingdom, and we should all work toward such rewards.

V14 - Paul’s obligation was created by his commission to be Yeshua’s apostle to the nations. His first obligation is to Yeshua, of course, but God promised to bring the Gospel to the nations (Isaiah 52:15 and other passages), and he delegated that responsibility, in part, to Paul, who once tried to stop the Gospel from spreading.

The Jews divided the world’s population into two categories: Jew (wise because they had God’s Law) and Gentile (foolish because they worshiped lesser pagan gods). The Greeks did much the same with the category of Greeks and barbarians. They were wise because they had their gods, philosophies, and sciences. The barbarians were foolish because they did not “understand” that their tribal deities were only provincial manifestations of the universal gods worshiped--with greater understanding--by the Greeks.

V15 - Paul is addressing Romans who thought of themselves as yet a third category from those discussed in v14. When he says “you also who are in Rome”, he obliquely acknowledges that they are neither Greek nor barbarian. The Romans admired Greek, but considered themselves to have taken up the culture and learning of the Greeks and improved on it in ways that the Greeks could not. They seemed to have had a more nuanced view of the nations than did the Greeks and Jews, but not dramatically so. Instead of two categories, they had four: Roman, Greek, Barbarian, and the Jews, who stubbornly refused to fit into anyone else’s system.

V16 - "I am not ashamed" is probably a deliberate understatement intended to mean "I am greatly honored". This is connected to Romans 15:17 on the opposite side of the Romans Chiasm.

The Gospel is the power of God to save all who believe, and not just the Jews to whom the messianic promises were first given. It is his power because there is power in his word. If he says something is true, then it is true. If he says that you will be saved, then you will be. Since God promised in Isaiah 2 and 11 (and other passages, especially in Isaiah) that the nations have an opportunity to join the Messiah’s people as a result of the sins of the native born Israelites, we can be absolutely certain that we have that opportunity.

"Everyone who believes" underscores that the offer of salvation has been extended to all peoples, but it also means that you must believe that God has come to set up his Kingdom and wants you to be restored to relationship with him in that Kingdom in order to take advantage of that offer. Paul says “to the Jew first and also to the Greek, because, as indicated in the Isaiah passages mentioned above, this offer is made as a result of the native Israelites having first rejected it, which logically requires that it must be offered to the Jew before it can be offered to the Greek.

Although Paul mentions five classifications of people in this passage (Jew, Gentile, Greek, Barbarian, and Roman), but with “the Greek” at the end of this verse he combines all but the Jew into a synecdoche for “Gentiles”. Ancient Jewish literature clearly shows a great admiration for the Greek people despite considering them to be in spiritual darkness. As a Jew, it’s possible that Paul believed his Roman audience might take “gentile” (Greek ethnos) as vaguely insulting. They certainly would have thought so if he had called them “barbarians” (Greek barbaros), whereas “Greek” (Hellen) would be a more acceptable term that they could interpret as referring to themselves as well as to the Greeks and barbarian peoples. He uses this same phrase, “to the Jew first and also the Greek”, twice more in Romans 2:9-10, and each time, it’s clear by the context that he means all non-Jews.

V17 - "Righteousness" might better be read as "justice". Both English words can be used to translate dikaisoune (δικαιοσυνη), but modern readers tend to associate “righteousness” with a personal characteristic of goodness and lawfulness, whereas “justice” is more about the standard of goodness and lawfulness, which is what Paul really means here.

The justice of God is revealed in the Gospel because the establishment of his Law (Jeremiah 31:33 and Micah 4:2) and the judgment of the wicked (Isaiah 13:11 and Micah 4:11-13) are inherent parts of the Gospel, which is the inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven and all that comes with it (Matthew 4:17).

The meaning of the phrase “from faith for faith” or, as some versions translate it, “from faith to faith”, could be interpreted in any number of ways, but two interpretations seem most plausible to me: First, we can be assured that God’s justice and wrath are certain because God is always faithful to his word. By his faithfulness demonstrated over time, our faith is strengthened and manifested in our own faithfulness toward him. Second, faith is like any muscle or skill, in that it is increased by being put to use. The more we trust in God, the more faithful we are to him, the more we learn to trust, and the more we are able to remain faithful to him. The discussion of the wrath of God in the following verses would seem to support the first interpretation over the second.

"The righteous shall live by faith" is a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 in which "righteous" is again more literally translated as "just" and could be thought of as "justified". By our trust in him and our surrender to his merciful judgment, we are justified or decreed to be righteous, regardless of past sins. Once forgiven, we walk out our belief in the promises and commandments of God by faithfully living accordingly. Even if we don't understand how God's laws or actions are righteous, our faith requires that we accept that it is.

God's justice is different than man's, though, and doesn’t rely on rote obedience to rules. Although we will be judged by what we do, God sees beyond the deed into the heart and mind. We are judged by what we do only because our outward faithfulness is inevitably informed by our inward faith and faithfulness. If you trust God with all your being, he counts you as one of his and will save you, even if your obedience is flawed. This is the righteousness of God.

V18 - The wrath of God is revealed from heaven in three ways:

1. The destruction brought by God or by his natural laws in response to wickedness.
2. Prophetic warnings and pronouncements given through prophets and the Scriptures.
3. The conscience of each individual, reflected from the primordial image of God within them.

All people instinctively know something about God’s standards of righteousness, but that knowledge is necessarily subjective, dependent on the individual’s conscience and experiences. The written Law is the primary means by which his standard of righteousness--and therefore man’s unrighteousness--is objectively revealed in the world. This requires that the Law be addressed to the whole world and not just Israel or there would be no objective standard by which to judge the world and subject it to his wrath.

God is both love and wrath. He loved the world while we were still sinners, but because our sin brings death and suffering, his love requires wrath. No loving parent allows his child to go on behaving in ways that will only bring him pain? If he loves us, he must be violently opposed to sin. “So you will know in your heart that YHWH your God was disciplining you as a man disciplines his son. Therefore, you will keep the commandments of YHWH your God, to walk in his ways and to fear him.” (Deuteronomy 8:5-6)

In order to go on being unrighteous, a person must suppress the truth of God’s Law, both externally and internally, the objective written Law and the subjective inner law of the conscience. God often responds to such willful disobedience by giving us more of what we want. Remember how Pharaoh determined to refuse God’s command to let his people go, so God hardened his heart until the full measure of his wrath had been poured out on Egypt. Paul addresses this dynamic in more detail in the following passage through 2:16.

V19-20 - Aoratos (αορατος, invisible) is only used by Paul and the author of Hebrews and is always in reference to God. The apparent contradiction between God’s attributes being simultaneously invisible and visible is to say that God himself cannot be seen, but his attributes can be deduced by what he has done and continues to do. Nobody can look at the natural world without thinking that there must be a Creator. As Hebrews 3:4 says, “Every house is built by someone.” Numerous aspects of the palace of the natural world strongly imply the existence of a Creator a purpose:

• Individual Complexity - The internal complexity of living things and the intricate balance of systems within systems requires a designer of extraordinary intelligence and foresight. Every lifeform is a self-repairing, self-replicating machine that becomes more complex, the closer you examine it, from the outer defenses of skin and bark all the way down to molecular factories beyond anything man has been able to copy with all of our technology. Individual organisms are so complex, even at the molecular level, that removing any one of thousands of different components or sub-systems will destroy the entire organism, yet those systems themselves are self-policing, removing, replacing, or repairing damaged components before they can cause significant harm. See Psalm 139:14.
• Biome Complexity - The interplay between organisms, even across species, also testifies to the existence of an intelligent, deliberate creator. Trees warn each other of danger. Viruses, bacteria, fungi, grasses, herbivores, and the most complex predators all cooperate, without any apparent conscious intention, to feed each other and keep ecosystems healthy. As local conditions change, local lifeforms adjust populations, habitats, and even genetic expression to compensate. See Job 38:39-41.
• Universal Fine Tuning - Physics demonstrates that our entire universe seems designed at every level to support life. A slight change in any number of values--some of which I could name, but won’t pretend to understand--would change the universe in such a way that life would become impossible. Stars and planets would cease to exist, let alone the minerals, seas, and atmosphere required by living organisms. See Psalm 19:1.

In the face of the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, his existence can only be denied by deliberate, continuous rejection and indoctrination. A child, left to himself, would assume that everything was created, and he must be trained to think otherwise.

One implication of this truth is that a person can attain a very basic knowledge of God’s identity without ever hearing the words YHWH, Jesus, Yeshua, Gospel, etc. All of those things are knowable, at least in conception, through the honest observation of Creation. If there is a Creator, then he has a purpose in creating. If he has a purpose for Creation, then he has a purpose for individual creatures. If he has a purpose for individual creatures, then he desires them to behave according to his plan. If his creatures will not behave according to his plan, then they should expect to be corrected, destroyed, or isolated so that they can’t interfere with the correct operation of the rest of Creation. Creatures who choose to act according to the Creator’s purposes can reasonably expect to be rewarded, although the Creator is under no obligation to do so. All of Creation, including every individual creature, belongs to the Creator and is dependent on him for its continued existence, and he is fully within his rights to use it however he wills, including destroying it.

Acceptance of the inevitability of God is in some ways more important than an academic knowledge about God, because a great deal can be learned of God’s character from the nature of what he has already done, apart from any special revelation or divinely inspired writings. As Job 12:7-9 says, “ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of YHWH has done this?”

V21 - Everyone, at some point, has a true epiphany of God. Everyone is presented with a window to the divine, but most people choose to turn away and suppress the truth in favor of a familiar, self-soothing lie. If you are determined to reject the truth, eventually you condition yourself to believe falsehoods and cripple your ability to evaluate and interpret the universe. The most intelligent people in the world have convinced themselves to believe the most absurd, anti-God fantasies because they decided to interpret the world through faulty premises. As Yeshua said in John 3:19, “they loved the darkness more than the light” because the darkness allows them to pretend that they are their own gods, defining their own standard of righteousness.

V22 - The philosophers and wise men of the ancient civilizations poured their energy into learning about God and then explaining away what they learned by attributing it to something else. They had wisdom in the grasp and threw it away like rebellious children. The Jewish people weren’t much better than the Greeks, as Jeremiah 10:14 attests. See also Isaiah 5:21.

V23 - All people have an innate drive to worship something, to align and ally with something greater than ourselves, but a being that created the universe must be effectively infinite in power and in his right to demand compliance with his standards. A smaller god comes with smaller standards. The sun may be intimidating in its power and ability to give life or take it away, but its existence doesn’t necessarily imply any demands on our behavior. Elevating an animal to the status of a god enables one to indulge his most animalistic urges and call it a virtue. It’s easy to worship heavenly bodies, earth-bound creatures, and inanimate objects because they make no real demands other than what we choose for ourselves.

Paul wrote this letter from one capital city of idolatry, Corinth, to residents of another, Rome. To many Christians in the West today, this kind of idol worship with festivals, incense, and sacrifice, is a hypothetical problem with little connection to their daily lives. That wasn’t the case for Paul and his Roman audience. Idolatry was everywhere. Human sacrifice was still common in most of the world, and hundreds of animals were sacrificed to the gods of Greece, Rome, and a dozen other pagan cultures in both cities every day.

Like the ancients, today’s Darwinists have become so enamored by God's creation and so desperate to deny God’s authority to make laws and punish disobedience that, in some ways, they worship the creation rather than the Creator, even making nature out to be its own creator. This isn’t so far from confused ancient pagan genealogies in which the convoluted relationships of air, light, land, sky, and sea (represented by deities such as Gaia, Uranus, and Oceanus) give rise to spirits which represent streams, trees, animals, and eventually mankind.

V24-25 - If you reject that which every child can discern, why should God invite you into deeper truths? Some people are intent on believing a lie. God didn’t create any specific individuals with the intent of forcing them to commit depravity and therefore to be objects of his wrath, but he does allow them to be who they want to be. He allows time for their depravity to consume them so that their guilt and God’s justice in punishing them becomes clear to everyone.

If they “exchanged the truth about God for a lie”, then they necessarily possessed that truth at one time. This reinforces what I said concerning vs 19-21. Everyone has access to the truth about God, and everyone had that truth within them at some point before exchanging it for something easier today, even though it will cost them everything at the final Judgment.

See Isaiah 40:18-24, 44:9-20.

V26 - “Dishonorable passions” in this verse is pathe atimios (παθη ατιμιας), shameful passions of the mind. Pathos refers to sickness, not just deviant desires. What we think of as passions would be orexis as in v27, not pathos. When Paul speaks of dishonorable passions, he's addressing a profound spiritual and moral sickness where individuals forsake God's clear design for human relationships. I’m not saying that we must deny all personal desires but that recognizing that some desires, when they lead away from God's design, are afflictions of the spirit, paths leading away from the healthy spiritual integrity he intends for us. In this light, homosexuality, as addressed in this verse, isn’t just a personal choice but a symptom of a deeper rejection of the Creator's right to assign purpose and function to his creation.

“Natural” is the Greek phusikos (φυσικην), which refers to that which is in accordance with the essence of something. Homosexuality is almost universally considered deviant behavior, contrary to the essence of mankind. Even in societies where homosexual practices are accepted or even celebrated, there remains an underlying acknowledgment, often unspoken, of its departure from the norm. This isn't about legal or social acceptance but about an inherent recognition of what all humans perceive as contrary to the natural order.

To argue in favor of homosexual behavior, as many do, by citing animal behavior in abnormal circumstances misses the point entirely. People are not animals. We are created in God's image and commissioned to rule over the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:26-28). To lower ourselves to mimic animal behavior is to reject that divine calling, to forsake the stewardship and dominion we were given. Human behavior should not be judged by animalistic standards but by divine revelation and by the natural law that was once written on our hearts and can be again.

In Genesis 1:28, God commanded mankind to multiply and fill the earth. This is both prescriptive and descriptive. Throughout Scripture and even in the natural inclinations God built into us, marriage is intended as a union between man and woman for the purposes of procreation and companionship. This is a divine mandate, transcending mutable cultural norms.

Verse 26 addresses female homosexuality, while v27 addresses male. Paul might have chosen to mention them separately because they have different roots and they violate God’s Law in different ways. There is no specific commandment against female-female intimacy, but there is a command and an established norm that women should marry and have children. Lesbianism rejects God's design and command in favor of a woman’s own, sometimes as a reaction against abuse by men and sometimes as simple rebellion against God.

V27 - "Passion for one another" is orexis (ορεξει, orexei), not pathos. This is more about indulging physical desires, than about spiritual sickness, although the indulgence produces the sickness in time. The "due penalty" mentioned at the end of the verse is threefold: spiritual condemnation, the pathe atimios of the previous verse (an increasing propensity for wickedness), and physical illness in the form of sexually transmitted disease as well as hormonal dysregulation and epigenetic effects that might aggravate the feminine propensities that are often consciously adopted by people engaged in such behavior. One perversity breeds another and another, like leaven. This is one reason why the worst male pedophiles usually prefer male victims. “Victimless” wickedness often leads to the creation of victims who go on to repeat the behaviors of the original perpetrators.

V28-31 - Rejecting God and embracing immorality destroys the mind's ability to think rationally. When you know the truth and deliberately practice a lie, you drive a wedge between yourself and God that may prove impossible to remove. Once you have made yourself unreachable, there is no limit to the depravity that your heart and mind is capable of.

A person who indulges in such behaviors, knowing full well that they are wholly contrary to God's laws, has deliberately chosen to spit in God's face. Having driven that wedge between him and the truly divine, he will begin to believe his own lies, and his thoughts will cease to be rational, if they ever were. His reasoning will be warped because his mind has shut off an entire part of his being and a huge aspect of reality for which he can no longer account, and so he will fall further into sickness. Although Deuteronomy 28:28 is talking about the national consequences of national rebellion against God, the nation can’t suffer madness and “confusion of mind” unless individual members of the nation succumb first.

Paul described the behavior of those who are beyond hope (i.e. of "a reprobate mind") as a parade of horrors worthy of death, but he singled out homosexuality for special treatment. He called it dishonorable, against nature, shameful, and erroneous. It isn't the practice of such things that cause a person to be beyond hope, but the love of them is evidence of their hopelessness. In other words, not all who do these things are reprobate, but the reprobate love to do these things.

This is not to say there is no hope for the homosexual and other dedicated sinners, but that hope is fleeting. If they do not repent when the Spirit gives them the chance, they may render themselves incapable of repentance. Such is the blasphemy of the Spirit, the unforgivable sin. It is not that God cannot forgive nor that he is unwilling to forgive, but that the 'reprobate mind' can no longer repent.

Hatred for God drives people to twist everything good into evil, even when it destroys themselves, because doing so allows them to show their spite for God. Keep your distance from people who embrace anti-Biblical morality or they will gradually corrupt your mind too. They can never be your friends.

This passage follows the same pattern as Paul's other statements concerning categories of people. Not all of these behaviors are explicitly sinful (e.g. foolishness here and drunkenness, anger, and rivalry in Galatians 5:19-21), but if these things become your identity, then you are surely also engaging in all kinds of God-hating sin.

V32 - Since we were created by God for God's purposes, those who reject what they know to be true and reject God's plan for them have no reason to complain about their condemnation. They are useless tools, so why should the toolmaker allow them to take up space in his workshop?

Everyone instinctively knows that heterosexuality and marriage are natural. People who want to reject God’s design in order to indulge their perverse passions convince themselves through choice and practice or by redefining words like “love” to justify their actions. Sometimes they are convinced by incessant brainwashing imposed by others, such as the public shaming and “training” imposed by entertainment, education, and journalism industries, or by pain and abuse inflicted on them.

Camping Tools: sleeping pad and hand saw

This is a little outside of my usual topics, but that's why it's here at Soil from Stone instead of at American Torah. The sub-header isn't "Bible study, politics, science fiction and fantasy, whatever else I feel like talking about" for nothing. 🤣

I garden, and I fish every couple of years, but I'm not an outdoorsman. However, three factors have peaked my interest in camping and hiking lately. First, our local fellowship has been holding an annual Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) event. God created Sukkot as a rehearsal of the 40 years that the Hebrews spent in the wilderness, and also to prepare us for what will come in the future, part of which might conceivably involve some actual time in the wilderness. Second, camping is a great way to build relationships with friends and family. Shared experiences are the primary catalyst for lifelong friendships and respect. Third, I think it's important to be prepared for disasters. You never know when a wildfire, hurricane, or war could severely disrupt your life. It's better to build the necessary skills and character before you need it.

As a result, I've been researching and shopping for some better camping gear, especially tools that are compact and lightweight enough to be suitable for an emergency pack, preferably even tools that might serve multiple purposes. I'm going to share some of my recent discoveries that I think you might find useful. Please note that the links below are Amazon affiliate links, so I get a very small commission for any purchases you make after clicking on them.

Klymit 2 Static V2 Sleeping Mat 

I go camping at least once a year, but I can't sleep on the ground. It's cold in the winter, and my joints hurt no matter what time of year it is. So, I don't sleep well without some padding. I've tried roll-up foam pads, air mattresses, and even a down-filled mattress topper, which--as I'm sure you can imagine--was pretty darned comfortable, but not very practical for emergencies. It barely fit into a large contractor garbage bag and took up a lot of space in my trunk. Can you imagine dragging something like that to a remote camp site? Even the most popular inflatable sleeping mats are much too bulky and heavy for any serious hiking.

The Klymit 2 Static V2 sleeping mat isn't absolutely top of the line--I don't have that kind of money--but it is pretty nice. Considering the 2.5 inch thickness, I was surprised that it did any good at all. The professional reviews were great, though, so I ordered one. I was honestly amazed at how comfortable it is. It blows up with 10-15 deep breaths (you can buy a compatible hand pump if you want), maintains pressure for at least 2 days (the longest I've used it so far), and rolls up into a 1 lb, 3" x 8" tube.

The Static V2 comes with 2 styles of air valve. I think the screw-type is older and has been replaced by the flip-type, which has much better air flow for inflation and deflation. I'm not sure you'll be able to specify which valve you want when you purchase, no matter where you purchase from. I bought two from Amazon. One had the old valve and one the new.

It also comes with multiple options. For an extra $30, you can get a model with better insulation. Klymit also sells a matching sheet, in case you're going to lay directly on the mat without a sleeping bag, and an inflatable pillow. 

There are a few minor drawbacks.

The Static V2 is made of very thin material in order to make it lightweight and compactable. It seems durable enough though, as long as you follow the directions and aren't abusive. The dimensions are also minimal at 72" long and 23" wide. If you move around a lot in your sleep, you might need to put your pack next to the mat to keep from rolling off. That's really not much different than the standard single sleeping mats, though.

Finally, although inflation is a breeze, deflation is a little bit more work. Once you open the valve, it will mostly deflate on its own if you leave it be, but that's not always an option. The chambered construction means you can't just sit on it to squeeze the air out. I had to fold it in half lengthwise and slowly push the air up from the bottom with my forearm, then continually push the air up again as I rolled it up to the top.

Overall, I give the Static V2 4.5 stars. It's a vast improvement over cheaper air mattresses.

CAMPNDOOR Pocket Chainsaw

I have a hatchet, a pocket knife, and a very big knife--I might talk about all of those in another article--but none of these are suitable for cutting fallen trees into firewood without a LOT of work. So, I looked for a saw that would easily fit into my pack. You can get folding limb saws, but since I already had a hatchet and gladius-sized knife, I wanted something lighter and smaller. 

There are uncountable wire saws out there, and if you don't mind cheap and disposable, you can probably pack a couple dozen without adding much weight. That's not really what I wanted though, so I kept looking and eventually found the CAMPNDOOR Pocket Chainsaw. 

It's essentially a chainsaw chain with two handle straps. You wrap it around the log you want to cut and pull it back and forth until you have two logs instead of one. It's 36" of heavy duty steel with 48 teeth, and it cut through a log in much less time than it would have taken with my hatchet. A gas-powered chainsaw would have been faster, but also not practical for hiking and emergencies. This pocket chainsaw weighs .5 lb and rolls up into a 4" x 4" x 1" leather pouch. 

This is another one I was skeptical about, but it performed flawlessly. Admittedly, I only cut one 7" log and one 3" log, but it seems pretty sturdy. The Amazon description says "4000N testing on this 65Mn manual chainsaw means only a 988+ LB Man could break it from misuse". That's probably an exaggeration--anyone can break a tool with enough misuse--byt I'm confident that this is a good quality tool that I expect to get a lot of use out of.

I'm giving this saw a tentative 5 stars. Tentative only because I don't yet know how long it will stay sharp nor how much continuous use it can take before overheating and breaking. The description says you can sharpen it with a standard file, but I'd rather not have to do that in the middle of a camping trip.

If you're willing to spend a little more and have the room for it, you can also get a 53" saw that comes with gloves, two 25' ropes, and sandbags so you can use it to cut down limbs that would otherwise be too high to reach. I'm not sure that adds much value for the camper, though.