THE LOST ART OF MOURNING

 

The Lost Art of Mourning 

Gen. 50:3 reports that all of Egypt mourned Israel for 70 days.  During this time his son Joseph apparently transacted no business, even though he was overseer of all Pharaoh's affairs.  We know this because only when the period of mourning was over did he inquire of Pharaoh's ministers if he could bury his father in the grave which, as his father had told him, "I dug for myself in the land of Canaan." This was in the cave his grandfather Abraham had bought from Ephron the Hittite. 

 After Pharaoh granted Joseph's request, all the house of Joseph, his brothers and his father's house, and the servants of Pharaoh, his elders and all the elders of the land of Egypt, escorted by a great company of chariots and horsemen, travelled to Canaan.  Gen. 50:7-9.  The Bible does not report how long the journey took, but it must have been quite an enterprise, a mini-exodus from Egypt if you will, and a foreshadowing of Moses's mass exodus with Israel's unruly and stiff-necked descendants four centuries later.  Once in Canaan, the entire company mourned for another seven days at the threshing floor of Atad, before returning to Egypt. 

 There are many other examples of mourning in the Bible.  Gen. 23:2 (KJV) reports that when Sarah died Abraham came "to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her."  Gen. 24:67 tells us that only after Isaac took Rebekah as his wife was he "comforted after his mother's death."

 Isaiah 53:3,4 prophesied that Jesus would be "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" and that "surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows."  In the shortest verse in the Bible, John 11:35 tells us that "Jesus wept" over the death of Lazarus.  His tears were prompted by the answer to his question, "Where did you bury him (Lazarus)?" and they answered: "Lord, come and see."  The expression, "come and see," is an invitation that Jesus used.  See John 1:39.  Perhaps hearing this expression spoken to him prompted Jesus's tears.  See also Psalm 46:8, "Come and see what the Lord hath done," and John 1:46: "Nazareth!  Can anything good come from there?  Nathanael asked.  Come and see, said Philip."

 I remember some decades ago older women wearing black for as long as a year after their husbands died.  This was an accepted practice back then as I recall, although it was fading.  I don't see much of that extended and almost ritualistic kind of mourning today.  It seems that in our times the culture pressures us to mourn loudly and quickly, get it over with, and then go on about our business.  Have you ever felt the uncanny sense of unease when later in the day after attending the funeral service for a loved one you have to run to the store to pick up a carton of milk, or some such errand?  The world does not stop for us but keeps moving on ever faster with all its commercial and glitzy concerns and preoccupations—this as our families and local communities, which used to ground us, seem to shrink in relative importance with each passing year, especially now when our hand-held devices give us immediate access to the entire world. 

After this period of mourning there was no longer any contention between Joseph and his brothers.  They lived in peace, and Joseph went from being in effect a busy CEO presiding over an empire to becoming a genuine family man, see Gen:50:22,23, reporting that Joseph lived long enough to see his children and his grandchildren grow up "on [his] knees."  Perhaps a proper period of mourning sets us up for a longer and wonderful period of quiet joy.  See Romans 5:3: where the always upbeat Paul writes, "Sorrowful, yet always rejoicing." 

The mourning over Israel in Canaan took place at the threshing floor of Atad.  The threshing floor in ancient times was where threshing and winnowing took place.  Threshing is the process of loosening the edible part of grain from the husks and straw to which it is attached by treading over them.  Usually oxen performed this task, but people can do it too.  See Ruth 2:17, where it is reported that Ruth "beat out what she had gleaned," and Ruth 3, describing how Ruth lay at the feet of her future husband Boaz on the threshing floor.   After threshing the grain the next step is to winnow it from the chaff by throwing the threshed mixture up in the air with winnowing forks.  The chaff blows away, leaving only the good grain on the floor. 

 Perhaps God is explaining to us in this passage what mourning should be for the human heart, removing the husks and straw and chaff of the physical life (bios) from the edible grain of the spirit (pnuema).  In other words, when properly done, mourning cleanses us from useless and petty emotions and thoughts and leaves our hearts exposed and receptive to God's grace.  This was, no doubt, what happened to Joseph and why he was so amenable to a final and harmonious reconciliation with his brothers.

 Here is my list on the five steps for constructive mourning.  This is not gleaned from personal experience or from self-help books, but solely from a review of scripture.

 1. It takes time.  Mourning can not be rushed.   Effective mourning requires communing with God, and God does not take well to our worldly time clocks.

 2. Minimize worldly distractions.  It's not easy to commune with God when you're rushing off to Home Depot to measure a new sliding door for the back deck.

 3  Rejoice.  See Philippians 4:4-5, "Rejoice in the Lord always."  Giving way to despair will do the mourner no good.

 4.   Give Thanks.   See 1 Thessalonians 5. 18, "Giving thanks in all circumstances."  This reminds us that we are fortunate and blessed to have a life-line to God, an eternal life line.

 5.  Always pray and do not give up.  Luke 18:1-8.  Our strength comes from God.  If we don't pray, we limit our access to this divine power. 

1 Corinthians 4:4 How should we read it? Some thoughts.

 

The usual translation of 1 Corinthians 4:4 strikes me as problematic, specifically the first phrase in the Greek (in bold print, UBS 3rd ed.):

οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ δεδικαίωμαι, ὁ δὲ ἀνακρίνων με κύριός ἐστιν.

The NLT (New Living Translation) translates this phrase as "my conscience is clear."  Another popular translation (this from the English Standard Version) is, "For I am not aware of anything against myself," (emphasis added.)  The term ἐμαυτῷ, I believe, should not be translated here as a dative of disadvantage, but rather as a dative of reference.  Thus, the phrase should read something along the lines of "I am not aware of anything with reference to myself" or "I am not aware or conscious of myself." 

My reasoning is this.  The verb σύνοιδα is very broad and means "to be conscious of something."  See Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 503.  See also Rogers, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 354, "Definite perfect with a present meaning, here, to know about oneself, what is unknown to others; 'my conscience is clear'." 

This unusual verb (it only appears twice in the New Testament, see Trenchard, Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament, p. 77) thus suggests that Paul's message here is in no way conventional and that the reader needs to pay attention.  

The key then is the translation of the dative reflexive pronoun ἐμαυτῷ.  Should it be taken as a dative of disadvantage, that is, "against myself" (as Dr. Wallace does in his grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics (GGBB), p. 144, 1996 ed.), or should it be viewed as a dative of reference, that is, "with respect to or regarding myself?" Wallace, in analyzing Phil 1:28, reasons that "where both are true (dative of disadvantage and dative of reference are both possible), treat the term as belonging to the more particular category, in this case disadvantage," and goes on to cite 1 Cor. 4:4 as an example of this construction. pp. 143-144. This is the translation adopted in the English Standard Version.

My problem with this construction here is two-fold.  The verb σύνοιδα is very broad and seems out of place if it is limited to only one aspect of Paul's behavior or  character, namely, anything that he has done wrong in the past.  If Paul wanted to say that he wasn't aware of anything against himself, why not simply use the far more common verb for knowing, οιδα (used 318 times in the NT, see Trenchard, p. 77) without the prefix?  Second, Paul is obviously aware of things against himself.  See 1 Cor. 15:9, where later on in this very letter Paul writes (ESV), "For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (Emphasis added).

Did Paul forget his earlier conduct here, or is he simply being "cleverly metaphysical?" 

I don't believe either is true. I think Paul is making a far broader and deeper statement.  He is saying that consistent with his new life in the Spirit in which he lives to God and not to himself, he is no longer conscious of his old self.  Yet Paul goes on to assert that even though he is no longer aware or conscious of his life in the flesh, this does not justify him before God, because only Christ can do that for him,

 ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ δεδικαίωμαι, ὁ δὲ ἀνακρίνων με κύριός ἐστιν. ("My conscience is clear, but that doesn’t prove I’m right. It is the Lord himself who will examine me and decide." NLT)

See also Galatians 2: 20 (NLT), "My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

To translate the phrase in 1 Cor. 4:4, οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα, as "I am not aware of anything against myself" (cf. GGBB, pp. 143-144, 1996 ed.) contradicts Paul's conception of salvation through grace and not works.  Can anyone claim justification based on his or her conduct?  As Christ said in John 6:63 (NLT) "The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing."  Why then would Paul resort to a legalistic formulation here, whether he is aware of anything against himself or not? 

The other common translation of the phrase―"my conscience is clear" (NLT)―is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.  What is a clear conscience exactly?  Is it morally, ethically or legally based?  Under Paul's view of salvation, it can't be any of these.  A clear conscience is part and parcel of a new creation born of the Spirit.  See 2 Cor. 5:16-17 (NLT), "So we have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view.... This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!"

Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 4:4 that he is not conscious of himself, that is, his life in the flesh, his old self, the self that was crucified with Christ on the Cross, and all of the conduct, both good and bad, that went with it.  See Romans 6:8 (ESV), "Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him."  Thus, the dative of disadvantage is not an option here as it is in Phil. 1:28, (see Wallace, GGBB, p. 143, 1996 ed.), and also in James 5:3 and probably Mark 13:9.  We need not choose between the two categories. The only permissible construction then of ἐμαυτῷ in 1 Cor. 4:4 is the dative of reference.

For Paul's view of the Gentile conscience, see Romans 2:15-16 (NLT, followed by the Greek Text, UBS 3rd ed.):

"They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."

οἵτινες ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως καὶ μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων,

ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε κρίνει ὁ θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.

Here, we see the back and forth of the legalistic conscience embedded in the flesh as it both accuses and defends. This is what Christ frees us from.  If Paul were saying in 1 Cor. 4:4 that he is no longer aware of "anything against him," that is, his bad conduct, he would be falling back into the curse of the Law.  See Galatians 3:13 (NLT), "But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing."

For translations that adopt the dative of reference in 1 Cor. 4:4 (there are not many of them, and they are hardly what you might call best-selling versions and tend to be older translations), see Douay-Rheims Bible, "For I am not conscious to myself of anything;" Young's Literal Translation, "[F]or of nothing to myself have I been conscious;" Darby Bible Translation, "For I am conscious of nothing in myself;" Geneva Bible of 1587, For I know nothing by my selfe;" Tyndale Bible of 1526, "I know nought by my selfe;" Literal Standard Version, "[F]or I have been conscious of nothing for myself;" Worrell New Testament, "For I am conscious to myself of nothing;" Worsley New Testament, "[F]or I am conscious to myself of nothing;" the Coverdale Bible of 1535, "I knowe noughte by my selfe;" and The KJB, "For I know nothing by myself."

Final Notes:  συνείδησις occurs 31 times in the NT, mostly in Paul.  See Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 1123. The term is never used in relation to a good or bad conscience in a moralistic sense. "The connection with faith shows that the good conscience has to do with the new creation which embraces all life, not just with a blameless conscience in a moralistic sense."  Bromiley, pp. 1123-1124.  The moralistic sense of conscience in Christian thought probably sprang from the early writings of the Apostolic Fathers.  See Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 3^rd edition, 1 Clement 1.3 (p. 46), Barnabas 19.12 (p. 438), and Herman Mandates 3.4 (p. 508).  

When Paul used the verb σύνοιδα in 1 Cor. 4:4, he was getting at something far deeper than knowledge in the mere sense of being acquainted with or knowing.  He was pointing toward the full realization of our salvation through Christ.  See 1 Cor., 15:53-57 (NLT):

"For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies.  Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die, this Scripture will be fulfilled: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?'  For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power.  But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ."

To sum up, the two popular translations of 1 Cor. 4:4 ("I am not aware of anything against myself" or "my conscience is clear") run aground on two points.  First, if σύνοιδα simply means to know or to be acquainted with, so that Paul is only saying that he isn't aware of anything against himself, that is contradicted just a few chapters later in the very same epistle where he admits that he is the least of the Apostles because he persecuted the church.  Squaring those two statements requires too much theological effort, in my view.  Second, the positing of a clear conscience as morally based is doctrinally incorrect because it goes against the whole notion of a clean heart and a good conscience as being part and parcel of a new creation through Christ.  As with much of Paul's writings, he is pointing here in 1 Cor. 4:4 to the full realization of his salvation as Christ-based and nothing else.  See, e.g., 1 Cor., 15:53-57 and Phil. 3:12.

The bottom line is this.  What does it mean to have a "clear conscience"?  Does it mean that one doesn’t feel guilty about anything one has done in the past?  That seems a rather legalistic, worldly and narrow view.  Or, does a clear conscience mean that one is no longer conscious of oneself because one lives to Christ and no longer to the flesh?  I think the latter is the better view and in accord with Pauline theology, as the theologians might say.  Here, the old KJV gets closer to the truer meaning than the newer translations, "For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord."

If you have any comments, objections or any other thoughts on this question, please leave a comment. 

A HEART OF FLESH, COMING SOON

 STAY TUNED

Eutychus Walker, an orphaned boy with a knack for online chess, goes to live with his reclusive uncle in the remote woods of western Pennsylvania. There, while encountering a mysterious chess opponent who goes by the handle Chessman666, the boy discovers a long-hidden family secret, a secret that eventually compels Eutychus and his uncle to embark on a perilous journey to the high Andean plains of Bolivia and ultimately to the fabled Lake Titicaca just as revolution grips the country. Chess and real life merge in this lavish intergenerational story of conflict, redemption and self-discovery spanning multiple cultures and countries.