Sunday Morning Greek Blog

January 25, 2026

Desiring the Presence of God (Psalm 27; Matthew 4:12–23)

Filed under: 1 Chronicles,2 Chronicles,Ecclesiology,Epifanía,Epiphany,Evangelism,Faith, Faithfulness,Hebrew,Joshua,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Psalms,Repentance — Scott Stocking @ 4:06 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

I presented this message on January 25, 2026, at Mount View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, NE. On the liturgical calendar, it was the third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year A.

Good morning! The Lord be with you!

Much of today’s gospel passage from Matthew is very similar to the events and themes we covered in last week’s Gospel passage from John. As such, I’m not going to spend much time in that passage today and instead want to look at our Old Testament reading, Psalm 27.

However, I will say a just a few words about the Matthew passage because there is a story in Matthew 4 that appears at first blush to disagree with John’s account about a similar encounter. Last week you may remember that Andrew was the first one of the disciples to want to follow Jesus, and he had meet Jesus at the place John the Baptist was baptizing in the Jordan River. He in turn went and got his brother, Simon Peter, to share the news that he had found the Messiah. After Peter met Jesus, John says they went and spent the day with Jesus.

Matthew’s account, as you heard, also has to do with the calling of Andrew and Peter, along with James and John, the sons of Zebedee as they’re fishing in the Sea of Galilee. However, in Matthew’s story, this comes immediately after Jesus spends 40 days fasting, praying, and being tempted in the wilderness. It seems clear then, that one of the things Jesus was praying about was who, among all the people he had met and interacted with during John’s “baptism revival,” would make the best choice for his band of 12 disciples. After all, Jesus had been in the wilderness 40 days, so it’s possible Andrew and Peter may have wondered what happened to him by that point. I’m guessing the four of them were pleasantly surprised to get the call from him, even if they didn’t yet understand the kind of commitment they were making.

The important takeaway for us in the choosing of Matthew is that Jesus wasn’t apparently looking for the well-educated scribes and well-respected, Pharisees, and Sadducees to be his followers. They surely would have argued with him the whole time given what we learn about them in the gospels and Jesus wouldn’t have gotten anything done. Although Jesus did come to preach repentance and a proper understanding of what our relationship to the Law and eventually Grace would look like, he was even more concerned about bringing people eternal hope, love, and joy in the midst of a religious structure that had grown increasingly legalistic and impersonal. The religious leadership of the Jews seemed to have a stranglehold on what the Jewish faith should look like, with hundreds of extra rules in place to keep you from even coming close to breaking the law.

This is where Psalm 27, a psalm of David, comes in. David’s leadership helped establish the nation of Israel as a regional powerhouse after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness and a few hundred years of rule by regional judges. It was during the period of Joshua and Judges where they conquered and in some cases wiped out nations that had “earned” the wrath of God for their wicked practices and animosity toward God’s chosen and beloved people.

Psalm 27 is filled with confident assertions and positive desires from David that he and perhaps the rest of Israel are in a right relationship with God. The Israelites were still adjusting to being a unified “kingdom,” not just scattered tribes ruled by local judges. But the attitude and the joy expressed by David in Psalm 27 seems to reflect a different mind set in his day than what comes across in the gospels. After all, you don’t see any of the Herods writing these kinds of psalms of praise! On the contrary, we get the impression that the Herodian Dynasty, which had descended from the Maccabees who had overthrown Greek rule almost 200 years prior to Jesus’s ministry, had become corrupt and heartless toward their own people in trying to appease their Roman overlords.

Our reading this morning left out a few verses from Psalm 27 this morning, so I would like to read through the whole Psalm a few verses at a time to talk about what it has to say to us this morning. We’ll start with vv. 1–3:

The Lord is my light and my salvation—

whom shall I fear?

The Lord is the stronghold of my life—

of whom shall I be afraid?

2 When the wicked advance against me

to devour me,

it is my enemies and my foes

who will stumble and fall.

3 Though an army besiege me,

my heart will not fear;

though war break out against me,

even then I will be confident.[1]

David didn’t have Pharisees and Sadducees telling him how to interpret God’s word and who added a “hedge” around the law. The “hedge” was a set of rules that rabbis had established much later in Israel’s history, probably sometime around 200 B.C. They were not strictly biblical commands, but they were guidelines intended to keep you out of situations that might increase the temptation to sin. It’s sort of like how some denominations today don’t want their members to dance because it might lead to “other things.” One such example from the Bible is when Jesus criticized the Pharisees because they tithed their mint, dill, and cumin—the smallest spices they knew about—but did nothing about justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23).

David knew where his power and protection came from in Psalm 27: it came straight from God. He is emphatic that he has no need to fear. He knows his enemies will stumble and fall regardless of who comes after him. That is true faith, true confidence in God’s sovereignty. It’s no wonder he was called a man after God’s own heart.

4 One thing I ask from the Lord,

this only do I seek:

that I may dwell in the house of the Lord

all the days of my life,

to gaze on the beauty of the Lord

and to seek him in his temple.

5 For in the day of trouble

he will keep me safe in his dwelling;

he will hide me in the shelter of his sacred tent

and set me high upon a rock.

6 Then my head will be exalted

above the enemies who surround me;

at his sacred tent I will sacrifice with shouts of joy;

I will sing and make music to the Lord. [2]

These three verses are interesting in that David speaks of God’s dwelling, his temple. Yet at this time, the first Temple had not been built yet. But twice, David references God’s “sacred tent.” This is a reference to the Tabernacle that the Jews had carried around in the wilderness for 40 years and was in use by David and the priests right up to the time Solomon built the Temple (1 Chronicles 6:32; 2 Chronicles 1:5)[3].

David understood the importance of a leader being present at worship regularly as an example to the people. David had brought the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem, so had been in the visible presence of God at least one time in his life. That is how he knows how awesome it is to gaze on the beauty of the Lord.

How does that apply to us today? We know when Christ died that the veil was torn in two, from top to bottom, so God’s presence no longer “hid” behind a thick curtain. God’s new way of working in his people after the death and resurrection of Jesus was to give each of us the Holy Spirit. So we most likely will not see a manifestation of the presence of God inside our four walls here, but we can see how the Holy Spirit is working in each of us as we fellowship, worship, and serve together in his name and for his glory.

7 Hear my voice when I call, Lord;

be merciful to me and answer me.

8 My heart says of you, “Seek his face!”

Your face, Lord, I will seek.

9 Do not hide your face from me,

do not turn your servant away in anger;

you have been my helper.

Do not reject me or forsake me,

God my Savior.

10 Though my father and mother forsake me,

the Lord will receive me.

11 Teach me your way, Lord;

lead me in a straight path

because of my oppressors.

12 Do not turn me over to the desire of my foes,

for false witnesses rise up against me,

spouting malicious accusations. [4]

David also realized in times of trouble that being in God’s presence allows him to call upon the Lord for mercy, protection, and strength. He asks God to “hear my voice” and for God not to “hid your face from me.” He desires to be taught continually so he is better able to serve God and lead his people away from and protect them from the dangers of the surrounding nations. He knows that people are out to get him. He knows God is the only one who can protect him from those aggressors.

We do this as well on Sunday mornings here, and throughout the week, by praying together for those things that are on our hearts. As a fellowship we can seek support from one another to receive comfort and strength. In all my years as a minister, I’ve lost track of how many people have told me they don’t have to go to church to be a Christian. Technically, that may be true, but it sure makes the Christian walk much easier when you have others around you who share the struggles and joys of human existence.

Finally, we have vv. 13–14:

13 I remain confident of this:

I will see the goodness of the Lord

in the land of the living.

14 Wait for the Lord;

be strong and take heart

and wait for the Lord. [5]

This is David’s concluding benediction, which seems to serve the same purpose in worship as something like our “Gloria Patri” or the Doxology choruses. David reaffirms the confidence he had in vs. 3. He calls on all the worshipers to “Wait for the Lord.” The most common translation for the Hebrew word translated “wait” [קָוָה qā wā(h)] is “hope.” David is waiting, hoping with confidence that the Lord himself will act to keep him and his people safe in the land of the living. David also calls the worshipers to “be strong and take heart,” something both Joshua and Jesus said in their respective ministries.

Early in Joshua’s account of taking the Promised Land, he writes to his fellow Israelites:

6 Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their ancestors to give them.

7 “Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go.

……….

9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.” [6]

Jesus said in his final instructions to his disciples just before his prayer at the end of the Last Supper:

33 “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”[7]

So I leave you with those words of encouragement this morning. May the peace of God reign in your hearts as you go from this place. Amen.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My views are my own.

[1] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[2] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] In 1 Chronicle 23:26, David relieved the Levites of their responsibility to carry the Tabernacle since Israel was permanently settled in Jerusalem.

[4] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[5] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[6] The New International Version. Joshua 1:6–7, 9. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[7] The New International Version. John 16:33. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

September 30, 2024

Jesus’s “Mean Tweets”: Political Rhetoric in the Heat of Battle (Matthew 23)

Filed under: 1 Samuel,2 Chronicles,Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Evangelism,Faith, Faithfulness,Government,Life of Christ,Matthew Gospel of,Prayer — Scott Stocking @ 11:35 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

NOTE: This article looks at Old and New Testament passages. If you want to go straight to the Jesus/New Testament part, jump down to the Jesus, Paul, and Mean Tweets section.

The story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 is an inspiring one for young and old alike. A young shepherd boy, probably still in his teens, uses a sling and a stone to bring down the largest enemy Israel had ever faced. While David’s victory in battle is impressive and saved Israel from a potentially pyrrhic outcome, his dialogue with the Philistine can be instructive to us on how to talk to our political adversaries and enemies.

Goliath’s first taunt of the Israelites is arrogant and defiant, as one might expect, and disheartening to the Israelites.

“Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. 9 If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us.” 10 Then the Philistine said, “This day I defy the armies of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other.”[1]

Goliath did this for forty days. I’m not sure why they stretched it out that long. It would seem that apart from Goliath’s strength, perhaps the Israelites looked intimidating enough that the Philistines didn’t want to trust their bluff with Goliath. But the Philistines must have gotten their spirits up when they saw scrawny little David coming their way. Goliath laughed and taunted Israel even more:

“Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. 44 “Come here,” he said, “and I’ll give your flesh to the birds and the wild animals!”[2]

David probably realizes he needs a little humility here, so his response is one of faith and trust in the Lord first and foremost, but also confidence. He also turns Goliath’s threat to feed him (just David, not the armies of Israel) to the birds and says:

“This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel.”[3]

Of course, with the help of God, a good shot, and Goliath’s giant sword, David defeated the giant.

So what did we learn from this interaction? First, David emphasized that he had an unwavering faith in what God was about to do through him. He knew he couldn’t do it on his own strength, but he’d also prepared himself for this moment, so it seems, by taking on a lion and a bear earlier in his life. Second, in addition to announcing his faith and trust in God to the Philistine, he also returned the smack talk and upped the ante on it. In the end, David didn’t have to eat his words, but the birds got to feed on his enemies.

In 1 Chronicles 20, we see Jehoshaphat calling all Judah to a fast in response to a threat from Moab. In this instance, there’s no communication with the enemy. Jehoshaphat offers up a prayer, and Jahaziel prophesied that God would fight for Jehoshaphat and Judah’s army. They sent a choir out in front of the army, and God set up ambushes for Moab’s army to rout them. All Judah had to do was carry the plunder back to Jerusalem.

A similar event happened with Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 32 (also recounted in Isaiah 37) when Sennacherib threatened Jerusalem. Sennacherib talked a bunch of smack to Hezekiah and blasphemed God repeatedly. Like Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah offered up a prayer with Isaiah, but no smack talk back to Sennacherib, and Sennacherib’s 185,000 forces are decimated.

Jesus, Paul, and Mean Tweets

In the New Testament, we see quite a different picture, but the dialogue isn’t about posturing for war. It’s primarily about confronting the religious establishment. In Matthew 3:7, John the Baptizer sees a bunch of Pharisees and Sadducees in the crowd that’s gathered around him and calls them a “brood of vipers.” Jesus would repeat that admonishment in 12:34 and 23:33 when confronting the Pharisees. Matthew 23 is also where we see Jesus pronounce seven “woes” against the “teachers of the law and Pharisees” and takes that a step farther by calling them “hypocrites.” He has a host of other criticisms he unloads on them as well. They’re hell bound and leading others astray. They’re “blind guides…fools…men,” “whitewashed tombs,” and murderers.

Then of course there’s the confrontation with the money changers in the Temple. Even though Jesus would say the Temple would be destroyed and that worshiping God wasn’t limited to the Temple or any other location for that matter, he still considered that his spiritual home, because he’s passionate about calling it “my Father’s House,” which means it’s his by “family” connection, and he wants to protect the integrity of the Temple while it still stands.

Before I wrap up the biblical background on this topic, I want to bring in one more quote from the apostle Paul. In Galatians 5:11–12, Paul is teaching about whether circumcision should still be considered a meaningful religious ritual for Gentile converts to Christianity. He is so upset about those legalistic “agitators” that he wishes they would just “emasculate themselves!”

In first-century Mediterranean culture, a teacher would not hesitate to talk serious smack about those who opposed or questioned his teachings. If you couldn’t defend your teaching, either by rational argument or by brutally calling out the shortcomings and hypocrisy of your opponents, you wouldn’t maintain a following very long. Jesus knew this of course, so he didn’t worry about being “Mr. Nice Guy” when it came to confronting his enemies. After a while, it became obvious that his religious opponents, NOT the Romans, wanted him eliminated. No one else in religious leadership was going to say anything nice about him. His followers often didn’t have enough clout for their positive view of Jesus to overcome the negative view held by the religious leaders. Jesus was on his own, with all the fullness of deity dwelling in him, and that was enough to keep him going.

Bringing It Home

Here’s the question that bridges the interpretive chasm from first-century Judea to twenty-first-century America, and indeed the world: “Would Jesus have used ‘mean tweets’ against his opponents?” Oh yeah, I went there. Leading up to the 2016 election, it was easy to see that the media and the Democrats were out to get Trump. The big tell: no one in the mainstream media would ever dare say a bad word about Hillary Clinton, while Trump always had a huge target on his back.

You don’t have to look far to see that press coverage of Trump was and has continued to be overwhelmingly negative while coverage of Clinton (or Biden, Obama, and Harris) was and continues to be overwhelmingly positive. Trump would be criticized and fact-checked. His supporters would be lumped into a “basket of deplorables” and “canceled” or ostracized, while the sins of the left were overlooked or whitewashed. So if the mainstream isn’t going to say anything critical of a Democrat and use debates to fact-check one candidate but not the other, who’s going to speak up for Trump? Many conservatives are, but Trump’s voice is the one that needs to be the loudest for himself. It can’t be easy for him, but he keeps plugging away with a smile on his face and joy in his heart as he tosses chicken nuggets to fans at an SEC football game or cheers on the fighters at a UFC match. He must say the nasty stuff about the Democrats, because in this climate, most of us have a reasonable fear of losing our livelihood or even our freedom if we speak out against the powers that be.

If you haven’t figured out by now, I’m targeting a specific demographic of voters with this article. I know many believers out there who are struggling with voting for Trump because of his “mean tweets” or his name calling of his opponents. But from my perspective, and I think my article confirms this is a biblical perspective, Trump is just following in the footsteps of Jesus when it comes to confronting the “political” Pharisees and Sadducees of our day and age. The left has been increasingly using lawfare against Trump, but thankfully with limited success. He can’t just sit back and take it, though. Even after two people now have tried to kill him, he still presses forward, and he needs to keep standing strong for himself, the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people and their way of life.

I don’t understand how someone could hold up Trump’s mean tweets against the lawfare of the Left and still say “Orange man bad; donkeys good.” If you’re a follower of Christ or a Jewish believer in God, I urge you to consider how Trump has modeled his campaign, whether intentionally or not, after the method of Jesus when confronting those who were trampling on the freedom God wanted his followers to live in. Our freedoms are in danger from the Left. There’s no third-party candidate who will save the day for us. Trump has a proven track record of defending our country, creating prosperity, and negotiating peace in the Middle East that no other candidate in history, except perhaps Reagan, has ever accomplished. Don’t be afraid of the mean tweets. If they were good enough for Jesus, they’re good enough for Trump.

If you don’t like the mean tweets, then at least consider this: Why don’t you be the ones who support Trump with prayers of protection and success, just as the Jews did in the OT stories above. You can play just as important role with prayer as Trump can with mean tweets. Don’t sit on the sidelines, though, if you don’t like any of them. No one you vote for is going to be a perfect role model of Christian belief and practice. Vote for the man who’s already shown you he cares about your freedom and prosperity.

My opinions are my own.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

[1] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[2] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

June 1, 2024

Christianity and Nationalism: A Brief Survey of Biblical Passages

Filed under: 2 Chronicles,Biblical Studies,Ephesians,Eschatology,Government,Prayer,Proverbs,Romans,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 11:03 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

What is “Christian Nationalism”? Some might say it’s that this nation was founded by educated adults who, for the most part, believed in the God of the Bible, even if they did not hold a monolithic view of what his nature, personality, and characteristics were. Some may have been deists; some may have been predestinationists; others may have been open theists. Regardless, some have the view that our nation should “get back to its Christian roots,” that our laws should reflect the moral and ethical principles defined in the Christian Scriptures. But apart from a mention of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and the phrase “endowed by their Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, that document doesn’t mention anything about any church, worship, or religion. We never see our founding fathers arguing too much about specific religions or religious viewpoints, at least not in our founding documents.

But that doesn’t mean their ideas about freedom, the free will of man to determine his own destiny apart from political or governmental overreach didn’t come from the Bible. It’s entirely possible that such a worldview was (and is) an underlying assumption supporting the principles of freedom they put forth. Many of the founding fathers had a classical education and had read some of the great works of Greeks and Romans, especially from the last half of the first millennium before Christ and a few hundred years after that. That would have included an education in Scripture as well, because the Greek and Roman material provided the sociocultural background for the growth and expansion of the early church. Their ideas about the best form of government to establish came from a wide variety of religious and secular sources full of stories about the ups and downs of ancient democracies, republics, monarchies, and so forth.

Another view that might be seen as Christian Nationalism is a little more generic. It’s not one that would seek to impose a strictly Christian or Judeo-Christian viewpoint be a test for government service, but one that expects a government and its servants to live up to the principles it has outlined in its founding documents. If the government says people should be free to worship as they choose and to associate with those they agree with, and for that matter free to not associate with those with whom they disagree if they so choose, then the expectation would be that the government should distance itself from any kind of religious disputes or regulations and truly allow people to be free in that regard. The moment the government says “You can’t express that view,” “You can’t associate with one another,” or “You must allow your enemies and detractors to associate with you,” they have crossed the line, and the people whom they govern have every right to call the government out on such interference.

I think for the vast majority of Christians, however, Christian Nationalism means you recognize that you are both a citizen of heaven the heavenly kingdom (John 18:36; Ephesians 2:19; Philippians 3:20) and a resident in the earthly kingdom (John 17:6–18, esp. vv. 11 & 16–18) doing your best to live out your heavenly purpose in the eyes of God. Each of us is responsible for our own salvation and our own relationship to God, but we also want to share the hope of Christ and eternal life with those around us. We have influence one person at a time. This is why Jesus said in John 17:9: “I pray for them [believers]. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.” Jesus is most concerned about individual hearts, not about a world that will pass away.

Even though we live in a world that will one day pass away (some of us may be thinking that will happen sooner than later at this point), we still have concerns about the larger issues of oppression and corruption, a fair justice system, and care for the indigent and infirm, just as Jesus did in his day. While Jesus never once criticized the Roman government, he was not afraid to speak to Pilate or Herod in the hours leading up to his crucifixion. The most popular thing Jesus ever said about the Roman government was his response when asked about paying taxes: “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Here’s the question for believers, then: How do we give back to Caesar while we’re still citizens in an earthly kingdom? I want to spend the rest of this article looking at Bible passages that have to do with our relationship and responsibilities with government and justice.

Old Testament

To lay a foundation, let me first start with Proverbs. While the Proverbs are not commands, they still reflect profound truths about life on earth. Proverbs 20:23[1] says, “The Lord detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him.” This is primarily a reference to economic transactions, but the general principle behind it is to treat everyone fairly, to apply the same standard regardless of any social, economic, ethnic, or religious background. It’s no accident that “Lady Justice” wears a blindfold and holds a scale: that image comes from the underlying principle of this passage. When we see an injustice, it is up to Christians, and indeed all decent people who have a sense of fairness, to speak out in opposition to it and do what they can to seek its correction.

Perhaps the most popular verse that Christians like to turn to is 2 Chronicles 7:14, which is one line from the prophecy (vv. 12b–22) the Lord gave to Solomon after he finished building the temple and the royal palace. The Lord promised that after a time of catastrophe,[2] “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” Obviously, we cannot underemphasize the power of prayer for a nation, both individually and corporately wherever a body of believers is gathered. But the word to Solomon at this time was for him to walk faithfully as well. In that context, they were primarily governed by God’s decrees and laws.

In the American context, we would expect the rulers of America to abide by the decrees and laws on the books as well, otherwise, there will be trouble for those who don’t. We can already see, for example, how America is becoming “a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples” because our leaders are not following and upholding the long-held tenets of the U.S. Constitution. It really doesn’t matter whether we think the Constitution contains religious or Judeo-Christian principles: the Constitution is the foundation for our laws and rights as citizens, but if it’s not upheld, the leaders should expect trouble and blowback. We can see the warnings of this prophecy beginning to manifest themselves even today. There is nothing wrong with Christians using the power of their voice in a society that claims to respect the right to freedom of speech to call for political or spiritual “righteousness” in their leadership.

We see the prophecy of 2 Chronicles fulfilled in the story of Isaiah and Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 32; par. Isaiah 37), where they prayed to God for deliverance from Sennacherib’s siege. God heard their prayer and wiped out all 185,000 soldiers with his mighty hand. I’m not saying that’s how God would handle it in every situation, but if we don’t pray and do our part, would God think we’re not really invested in and reliant on his mighty power? Ephesians 1:19 says the power we have as believers “is the same as his mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead.” That power, at least in large part, is represented by the Holy Spirit in our lives. We can be bold because we have that power. Let us not shrink back!

New Testament

As I said in the introduction, Jesus never once offers any commentary, positive or negative, on the form of Roman government he was living under. He’s just not concerned about that because that’s not his focus. His focus is establishing the kingdom of God. That is evidenced by his statement of giving back to Caesar what is his (Luke 20:25). In other words, he fully supported paying taxes. It is interesting, then, that just a few chapters later, in Luke 23:2, the mob accuses Jesus of opposing payment of taxes to Caesar! The old dipsy-do flip-a-roo, as Dan Bongino says. Some people might see Jesus’s response to Pilate in that setting as off-handed snark: Pilate asks Jesus if he’s the king of the Jews, and Jesus replies, “You have said so,” as if he’s accepting Pilate’s confirmation of that grant of royalty!

Before looking at Paul’s interaction with Roman rulers in Acts, I want to look at the book of Romans itself, namely the passage in Romans 13 where Paul directly addresses what the believers’ attitude should be toward governing authorities. Here’s 13:1–7 in its entirety:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. [3]

The beauty of the American republic (and it is a republic, not a democracy according to the Constitution) is that our public representatives govern with the consent of the governed. As such, the founding fathers intended to be a mutual sharing of this power for which the people, if they so choose, could withdraw their consent at any time: the power to elect in most cases resides with the people, while the power to enact laws lies with the representatives so elected. The Constitution also states that the people in each State do NOT elect the president directly by virtue of the aggregate popular vote across all States, but that they elect electors dedicated to vote for the candidate who, in 48 States at least, wins the popular vote in each State.

By the time Christ was born, the Roman republic had been overthrown in favor of the autocracy of the Caesars. Rome still had the Senate as an artifact of the republic, but it had no real representative power. So when Paul writes Romans, he’s writing about an autocratic government under the rule of Caesar with regional governors or kings established in various localities. We see this hierarchy in the latter part of the book of Acts as he goes through his appeal process to Caesar.

In Paul’s day, then, Roman rulers feared wrongdoers because they could cause disruption in the empire. But they had no fear of the population generally because their tenures were not necessarily dependent on the consent of the governed. But as we’ll see when we look at Acts, they did have some fear of Roman citizens, who had special rights in Roman law, especially a right to a fair trial, so I believe we can offer a caveat here on Paul’s words: rulers and their enforcers do seem to have a certain level of fear of potentially mistreating a citizen. Having said that, let’s look at Paul’s interactions with Roman law enforcement and rulers in the book of Acts.

Acts: Paul’s Defense

The story of Paul’s arrest and subsequent appeals begins in Acts 21:27, where some Jews have Paul arrested by stirring up the crowd against him with, you guessed it, false charges that he had brought a Gentile into the temple. The Jews dragged Paul out of the temple and began to assault him with the intent to kill him. The Romans came and arrested Paul, not necessarily because of the false accusations, but because the Romans didn’t like unruly mobs and riots. Since Paul appeared to be at the center of the controversy, Paul got arrested, shackled, and carried (literally) off to the barracks amidst the riotous mob.

After a brief attempt to relay his conversion story to the angry mob, the crowd decided they still didn’t like him and resumed their calls to have him executed. At that point, the commander had had enough and ordered that Paul be flogged and interrogated to figure out why he was the main attraction at the riot. It is at this point that things get interesting with respect to Roman law and law enforcement, and we learn quite a bit about how Rome viewed citizens’ rights. Here’s the exchange from Acts 22:23–29:

23 As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air, 24 the commander ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be flogged and interrogated in order to find out why the people were shouting at him like this. 25 As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?”

26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. “What are you going to do?” he asked. “This man is a Roman citizen.”

27 The commander went to Paul and asked, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?”

“Yes, I am,” he answered.

28 Then the commander said, “I had to pay a lot of money for my citizenship.”

“But I was born a citizen,” Paul replied.

29 Those who were about to interrogate him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains. [4]

Paul knew his rights as a citizen of Rome, and he “turned the other cheek”[5] by claiming his Roman citizenship and thus de-escalating the situation. He knew he should never have been put in chains in the first place. He also knew Rome shouldn’t flog him unless he’d been found guilty in a fair trial. He wasn’t about to let himself get pummeled by cruel Roman soldiers. We shouldn’t let ourselves get pummeled or walked all over either. We must stand strong and claim our rights.

The commander and his subordinates were “alarmed” (φοβέομαι phobeomai, from which we get “phobia”) that his soldiers had put Paul in chains. The commander knew he could get in serious trouble for that. The same could be said for the interrogators. They withdrew immediately once they heard he was a natural-born citizen of Rome. They could smell the scandal brewing and wanted nothing to do with it. Politicians today are so drunk with power and corruption that they’ve lost their fear of the electorate. Maybe it’s time to change that, nonviolently of course.

After that, Paul was taken to Felix, but Felix took his own sweet time interviewing Paul and trying to figure out what to do with him. At the end of Acts 24, we find out that Felix is interested in Paul because he was hoping Paul would bribe him. Paul, as a citizen, was in prison for at least two more years after that, but was able to have visitors to care for his needs. Felix is replaced by Porcius Festus in Acts 24:27, who seems to want to resolve this situation quickly.

The Jews wanted Festus to bring Paul back to Jerusalem, because they were still committed to ambushing and killing Paul, but instead, Festus invited them to Caesarea where Paul was being held. It is in this exchange where we see Paul again assert his Roman citizenship rights. After more than two years, he must be frustrated with the slow progress of his case, so he’s anxious to move on as well. Here’s what Paul says after Festus asked Paul if he wanted to go back to Jerusalem to stand trial with the Jews:

10 Paul answered: “I am now standing before Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. 11 If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!”

12 After Festus had conferred with his council, he declared: “You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you will go!” [6]

Paul is done playing the Jews’ game at this point. His appeal to Caesar essentially puts an end to the Jews plot to kill him because he becomes a protected prisoner at that point; he knows that they are obligated to get him to Rome alive to make his appeal to the Autocrat Caesar, who is also chief (only) justice of the Roman supreme court as well. Through all of this, Paul never gives up, never gives in, and ALWAYS asserts his rights as a citizen.

Paul has one more appearance before a Roman ruling official, King Agrippa, whom Paul speaks quite convincingly to in his defense of his ministry and the gospel. King Agrippa says to Festus at the end of Acts 26: “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.” In other words, the favorable ruling of a “lower court” was not sufficient to set Paul free. There was no escaping Paul’s appearance before Caesar, which is probably what Paul wanted anyway. He had availed himself of an incredible opportunity to present the Gospel to the highest levels of Roman government.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, the book of Acts ends before we find out what happened to Paul in Rome. But several principles of the believer dealing with government stand out here.

First, for American Christians who live in a society with (supposedly) guaranteed rights, Paul demonstrates that we can and should avail ourselves of those rights to affect our preservation. We should not simply give up those rights or become doormats for the oppressors, but we should be bold in defending our rights and ensure that the government knows they have something to lose if they unfairly or prejudicially deprive us of those rights. We should be the strong ones who take that stand. Otherwise, this would empower the government even more to continue that corruption and take advantage of even “the least of these” who may not have the means, the courage, or the wherewithal to fight back. After all, aren’t “the least of these” special to Jesus? If we fail them, we fail Jesus.

Second, make sure you understand all your rights afforded you by the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments, and the statutes and ordinances in your own State and town and wherever else you may travel. If you feel like someone is unfairly targeting you about some issue, you ALWAYS have the right to an attorney; and if you’re accused of something, exercise your Miranda rights to have an attorney present if authorities are questioning or interrogating you. Don’t allow warrantless searches of your property or even warrantless “interrogation” about others. Give the government a nonviolent reason to be afraid of how you might respond if your rights are violated.

Third, as much as you can, take every opportunity to share the gospel with those who need to hear or especially those who want to hear. Consider that sometimes, the person you’re talking to may not be the only one listening. Someone else may hear your testimony or message and be moved by it. Keep yourself “prayed up” as well. Make sure you’re faithful with church and group attendance; Bible reading, study, and meditation; and your family and marriage commitments as well. DON’T LOSE YOUR FAMILY!! You’ll need them for support in the tough times ahead.

Finally, much of what is going on in America right now seems to have a spiritual warfare component: good vs. evil; right vs. wrong. “Be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes” (Ephesians 6:10–11). I have already written quite a bit on spiritual warfare,[7] but the important thing to realize is that the “armor of God,” if you look up the references to the individual items in the Old Testament, always refers to armor that God himself wears (figuratively, of course). It’s not from some giant spiritual storehouse; it’s God’s own armor. Knowing you have that defensive protection can give you even greater assurance as you speak boldly in his name.

I’m sure there is much more I could say from a biblical perspective on this matter, but I trust this gives the reader enough to go on and stay motivated to defend your freedoms, your family, and your faith. As for the title “Christian Nationalism,” remember it’s just a title the media likes to use and distort to make Christians look bad. Love your country but remember that your first allegiance is always to God. Peace to all of you, and may God bless the United States of America!

My opinions are my own.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

[1] See also Leviticus 19:15, 35–36; Job 31:5–8; Proverbs 11:1, 16:10–15; Ezekiel 45:9–12; Hosea 12:7; Amos 8:5; Micah 6:11.

[2] Although only three catastrophes are mentioned (drought, locusts, and plague), these are merely examples given of natural catastrophes akin to the plagues on Egypt and, by extension, any socio-political catastrophes as well.

[3] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[4] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[5] For a discussion about turning the other cheek as an effort to de-escalate a situation, see my article Getting Naked for Jesus: A Lesson on Loving Your Enemy

[6] The New International Version. Acts 25:10–12; emphasis mine. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[7] Spiritual Warfare in Ephesians; Helmet of Salvation; The Lord’s Prayer: Deliver Us from the Evil One.

July 2, 2021

μαλακός (malakos) “soft”; “weak”; “effeminate”: A Look at Classical and Biblical Greek Usage

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,1 Timothy,2 Chronicles,Exodus,Greek,Isaiah,LGBTQ,Luke Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,Proverbs,Repentance — Scott Stocking @ 12:31 am
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[If you like this post, you may also like “Rachel Weeping”: The Objectification of Gender and Children.]

One of the main goals of a word study in an ancient language is to understand how the writer used the word in the original context and, where possible, to discern contextual clues that provide the historical and cultural background of the recorded events, descriptions, and deliberations. We cannot change what the historico-cultural background of the time was, nor should we presume to impose modern concepts and ideas on an ancient text or its author, although further study may reveal a more thorough understanding of the historico-cultural background and cause us to look anew at certain texts.

With this in mind, I set out to understand more fully the implications and ideations surrounding the use of μαλακός (malakos) in the ancient Greek texts, and more specifically how that understanding would have carried over into biblical texts of the day in its few uses in Matthew 11:8 (par. Luke 7:25) and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) does not have a separate entry for μαλακός, so the average student of the Bible whose Greek knowledge is limited to Koine is left wanting if they want more information about the broader historico-cultural use of the word.

My purpose here is not so much to comment on the 21st century state of affairs surrounding the concepts behind the word, although I freely admit that is the reason why I undertook this study in the first place. Rather, in the spirit of TDNT, I want to give a more dispassionate, unbiased look at the use of the word in the historical context so the student of the Bible has a fuller understanding of the word and can therewith draw their own conclusions. As with all of my writings on biblical texts, my goal is that we have a fuller understanding of the Word of God and God’s love for us so we can better and more fully love our neighbor as God loves us.

My methodology for this study is simple: I looked at standard Greek annotated Lexicons such as Liddell & Scott (LS) and the online Perseus resource (the Greek texts and any corresponding English translations of the text where available) in addition to standard biblical reference works (UBS 3rd & 4th editions) that indexed the use of the word to its various contexts, then examined the surrounding context to understand the writer’s tone and intention surrounding the use of the word. Where the word was used in contrast, comparison, or in parallel (synthetic or antithetic) with other words or ideas, I examined those as well to better understand the contrast or comparison.

I want to keep this brief so the busy pastor or researcher can get a broad overview of the word’s use in the ancient world. As such, I have chosen representative examples from the entries in LS and other resources to illustrate usage rather than an exhaustive treatment of lexical entries. Most of these resources are publicly available online or in your local college library, so nothing should stand in the way of those who want to dig even deeper. I have organized the article on the basis of the word’s semantic domains rather than by source so the reader can more readily access the section relevant to their interests.

Soft (in the sense of physical touch)

One of the more benign meanings of the word is “soft,” especially when referring to animals or nature. Xenophon (Hiero the Despot 1.5) speaks generally about experiencing the extremes of sensation: cold vs. hot; light vs. heavy; pleasure vs. pain. In the list, he contrasts “soft” with “hard” (σκληρὰ sklēra). In his writing about Horsemanship (1.9a), he makes the same word contrast regarding the condition of a horse’s jaw. Xenophon also uses the word to describe the soft coats of the hunting hounds and the hare, the need for a soft collar for the hunting hound to prevent chafing (Hunting 4.6, 5.10, 6.1), and the softer “double back” on dappled horses (Horsemanship 1.11c).

Xenophon also uses μαλακός to describe the turf on which a horse should be trained (Horsemanship 8.6) and soft turf that makes it easier to track the quarry (Hunting 10.5). Homer (Iliad 9:615–619) uses the word to describe a soft couch on which to lie and in the Odyssey to describe soft fleece (3:38). Herodotus (Histories 9.122.3) also uses the term twice in a zeugma with respect to land somewhat metaphorically in his phrase “Soft lands breed soft men”; the second use of the word in that zeugma is covered in the next domain of meaning below.

The word is used three times in the NT in parallel passages (Mt 11:8 [2x]; Lk 7:25) to describe the “fine clothes” worn by those in palaces. There is one use of the word in this domain in Proverbs 26:22, although used metaphorically: “The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels, they go down to the inner parts of the body.” This seems akin to Xenophon’s usage (although perhaps a bit more abstract) in Hiero the Despot 1.23: “Don’t you look on these condiments, then, as mere fads of a jaded and pampered appetite?” Note that the phrase in the Greek here for “jaded and pampered” is μαλακῆς καὶ ἀσθενούσης, the latter word often translated “sick” or “weak.” This is an important pairing for two reasons. In Xenophon’s Horsemanship 1.3, the superlative of the adjective is contrasted with ἰσχυροτάτῳ (“strongest”) in describing two parts of the horse’s foot (hoof and flesh). Second, the substantive cognate of μαλακός, μαλακία, also means “sickness,” “weakness,” or “pain,” especially in several OT passages (e.g., Ex 23:25; Dt 7:15, 28:61; 2 Chr 16:12; Is 53:3) and three times in Matthew’s gospel (4:23; 9:35; 10:1), all of which have some overlap with the next domain discussed.

Soft (as a character attribute or abstraction), often translated “weak”

The most extreme example of “soft” as a character attribute in my mind is Homer’s description of defeated (and deceased) Hektor in Iliad 22.373 as the victors continue to defile his body with spear jabs: “It is easier to handle [lit. “softer to touch”] Hektor now than when he was flinging fire on to our ships.” In Laws 666b-c, Plato describes the “convivial gatherings [that] invoke Dionysus” where the men over 40 may drink wine without moderation such that “through forgetfulness of care, the temper of our souls may lose its hardness [σκληρὰ sklēra] and become softer and more ductile” (my literal translation). R.G. Bury’s English translation (much less literal and perhaps more poetic than my own) of the same passage describes the wine “as a medicine potent against the crabbedness of old age, that thereby we men may renew our youth.”

Archidamus “had gained credit for weakness” (or as Jowett’s translation has it, “was also thought not to have been energetic enough”) when attacking the Athenians at Oenoe, seemingly procrastinating the attack and perhaps thinking he could spare any damage to the surrounding land that full-on aggression might bring (Thucydides, Histories [The Peloponnesian War] 2.18).

In Herodotus Histories 3.51.2, Periander desires “to show no weakness,” and later in the same book (3.105.2) Herodotus says “the mares never tire, for they remember the young that have left.” (It is interesting to note that the latter reference could be an unintended word or semantic play, as the word for “mares” [θῆλυς] could also be translated “weak” in some contexts.) In 6.11.2, Herodotus recounts that Dionysius addressed his slave army, contrasting the potential for hardship in a battle that could win them their freedom or a “weak and disorderly” response which would lead to continued slavery and perhaps even humiliating death. Recall also the zeugma mentioned above found in 9.122.3: “Soft lands breed soft men.”

One final reference to Herodotus Histories (7.153.4) will tie us into the other NT usage of the word. Herodotus describes a man named Telines, who “is reported by the dwellers in Sicily to have had a soft and effeminate [θηλυδρίης τε καὶ μαλακώτερος] disposition.” This is Godley’s translation. The words are used in parallel with a double conjunction, so it’s not clear at first glance if the Greek word order is switched in the English translation. Regardless, the words are used in parallel, so (as shown in the previous paragraph), it makes little difference in the translation, and Telines’s character is certainly not portrayed in a positive light by Herodotus. [NOTE: See excursus below on Telines’ story in Herodotus.] The use of μαλακός in this domain is primarily a negative trait when ascribed to a human person. It is important to keep this in mind as we look at NT usage of the word (and its parallel) when applied to people in lists of, to put it softly, unflattering persons.

I believe it is, in part at least, this use here in classical Greek that informs Paul’s use of the word in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (NIV), and the context in Paul’s letters bear this out: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” The King James Version (KJV) is a little more literal with the translation of the target phrase: “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” Lowe & Nida, in their Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, distinguish the two words by saying the former is “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse,” and the latter is “the male partner in homosexual intercourse” or in this context, the “active” partner. (Could Herodotus have implied a similar distinction with his dual description of Telines?)

The latter word in the Corinthian text (ἀρσενοκοίτης) is a masculine compound meaning “lying with men” in Liddell & Scott’s abridged lexicon. This word is also used in 1 Timothy 1:10 in a similar list: “for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.”

Conclusion

Short of an Orwellian feat of doublethink, then, it is nearly impossible to give any positive twist on the use of the words for persons practicing homosexuality in the NT. Some try to argue μαλακός means “morally soft” apart from any sexual connotations in the 1 Corinthians passage, but the context in Paul’s letters does not really allow for a generic description like that. I’m not trying to be cruel or bigoted here; I’m just stating the obvious facts as revealed in the historical usage of the words. However, I would remind my Christian siblings that Jesus’s attitude toward those on whom Jewish society generally looked down on (e.g., tax collectors) was not one of hatred, judgment, or spite, but of love and acceptance with a view toward repentance. My encouragement to my readers is to have the same attitude of Jesus toward those practicing homosexuality.

My opinions are my own.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

Excursus on Herodotus Histories 153: the Story of Telines

Added February 17, 2026.

Telines descended from a family from the Isle of Telos (thus the name?) and apparently worshipped the goddesses of the underworld, Demeter and Persphone (aka Kore). Telines had “won” the priesthood of these goddesses for himself and his descendants by rescuing some exiles from Mactorium and returned them to Gela “with no force of men but only the holy instruments of the goddesses worship to aid him.”* Herodotus does not relate how this happened; one might speculate he convinced the Mactorians to worship the goddesses, or perhaps he used the artifacts to indicate some terrible fate awaiting the Mactorians if they continued to hold the exiles. Regardless, the full context of Herodotus’s assessment of Telines not only confirms the meanings of the Greek words attributed to him that I cite (they are the translator’s words, actually) but also may lend some insight into the use of the words in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10.

“Now it makes me marvel that Telines should have achieved such a feat, for I have always supposed that such feats cannot be performed by any man but only by such as have a stout heart and manly strength. Telines, however, is reported by the dwellers in Sicily to have had a soft and effeminate disposition.”*

The contrast between Herodotus’s expectation of Telines’s character and the Sicilian report of such further emphasizes the negative attribution of the two words. But was the Sicilian “report” an accurate reflection of Telines’s character, or had they been perpetuating a false narrative about Telines because they just didn’t like him and wanted to ostracize him? Again, that’s all we have of the history in the four “verses” of the story. The connection with 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 might be obvious to the reader at this point. Herodotus seems to suggest that Telines has “redeemed” himself from the Sicilian reputation (whether he deserved it or not) by performing an act of religious heroism in rescuing the exiles. Paul says the μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται have also been redeemed by converting to Christianity and becoming Christ-followers. In the biblical context, those who were redeemed were also cleansed of their sin and recipients of new life and a new lifestyle.

This is consistent, then, with the transition that Paul makes from the last half of Romans 1, where he describes the sexual debauchery of the Gentiles, but then begins chapter 2 suggesting that even those Gentiles can be redeemed, because God’s kindness could lead them to repentance.

I was touched by the full story once I understood it, and I do have to give some credit to Copilot AI for helping me understand that I didn’t have to look too far to get the complete extant story. I hope this encourages you as well. I read some of the context before and after this story in Herodotus, and I found myself drawn into it, as he had some other moral lessons as well that I may write about at some point.

*Herodotus. 1920. Herodotus, with an English Translation by A. D. Godley. Edited by A. D. Godley. Medford, MA: Harvard University Press.

January 26, 2012

“Seer” in Old Testament: A Hebrew Word Study

Filed under: 1 Chronicles,1 Samuel,2 Chronicles,Hebrew,Old Testament,Prophet — Scott Stocking @ 10:12 pm

I’m digging into my archives from way back, when for a short time I sent out an e-mail called “Word of the Week” and when I contributed to the HarvestNet.org forum. I hope you enjoy!

The concept of the seer in the Old Testament (OT) may be connected to the priest who wore the Urim and Thummim. I don’t know if all of the individuals called seers were keepers of the Urim and Thummim, but if any were priests (e.g., Zadok, 2 Sam 15:27), they probably did. Seventeen of the twenty-eight occurrences of “seer” appear in 1–2 Chronicles, which one should expect, since Chronicles is the priestly account of the kings of Judah.

רֹאֶה

The NIV translates two Hebrew words as “seer” in OT, רֹאֶה (rōʾěh) and חֹזֶה (ḥō∙zěh). The first word is a participle (i.e., a verb used as a noun) form of the verb “to see” in Hebrew. OT authors used the word twenty-six times. The NIV translates רֹאֶה twelve times as “seer” and twelve times generically as anyone who “saw” something in the natural way. You will find the other two occurrences in parallel passages (2 Kings 25:19, Jeremiah 52:25), where the NIV translates them as “men of the king’s council,” which might be a little closer to “seer” in the religious sense. The word is used of Samuel eight times. In fact, the first time the word is used of Samuel (1 Samuel 9:9), the author makes a point of bridging the gap between the era of the seer and the rise of the “prophet.”

The Septuagint (LXX) in seven of those eight occurrences translates this as βλέπων, “one who sees.” This word by itself has no technical significance in Greek as far as I know relating to special prophetic function. The other occurrence connected with Samuel is translated προφήτης “prophet” in the LXX (1 Chronicles 26:28). Two other mentions of רֹאֶה refer to Hanani, an advisor to one of Judah’s kings. The LXX calls him προφήτης.

חֹזֶה

The second word (חֹזֶה) is found sixteen times in the OT, and with the exception of Isaiah 30:10, where the NIV translates it “prophets” in parallel with רֹאֶה, it is translated as “seer(s).” This is the main word used to describe those who were either in the employ of a king, or advised kings. (Hanani above is the only exception, but his(?) son Jehu is called a חֹזֶה in 2 Chronicles 19:2.) Ten of the sixteen times, it either refers to the “king’s seer” or to someone who advised a king (whether the king wanted him to or not; similar to the roles played by the men in 2 Kings 25:19). I include Amos in this count (Amos 7:12). The LXX uses ὁρῶν (“one who sees,” probably with emphasis on content of what is seen rather than the act of seeing) eleven times. βλέπων is used once (in 1 Chronicles 29:29; רֹאֶה Samuel and חֹזֶה Gad are mentioned together here; both are called βλέπων in the LXX).

There is also an interesting connection with חֹזֶה in that in a few instances, the seers were connected with music or poetry. In 1 Chronicles 25:5, the LXX identifies Heman as an ἀνακρουομένῳ “one who sings praise” or “one who prophesies with music.” He is one of the men chosen “for the ministry of prophesying, accompanied by harps, lyres and cymbals” (1 Chronicles 25:1; see also Judges 5:11). Asaph (one of the more prominent coauthors of the Psalms) is also mentioned as a seer (1 Chronicles 29:30).

Finally, Isaiah 30:10 (in addition to 1 Chronicles 29:29) mentions חֹזֶה and רֹאֶה apparently synonymously. רֹאֶה and חֹזֶה are most often translated προφήτης in the LXX and “seer” in the NIV, but חֹזֶה is occasionally translated ὁρῶν in LXX, especially of David’s seer Gad.

The Role of the Seer

The role of the seer is very easy to discern in the OT. He spoke the word of God to the people or to kings. The title was prominent up through the beginning of the kingdom era, but the title gradually shifted to prophet (נָּבִיא), especially when Isaiah came on the scene. The seer was probably a little more politically connected than the prophet, but neither were strangers to the palace. And neither had a message that was any more popular with the people or the kings: they rarely minced words. Samuel was the hinge pin of history between the seer and prophet, as he ushered out the age of the judges and ushered in the age of the kings.

Conclusion

I suppose I could say my last two posts are a bit of a hinge pin as well. This blog originally started as my musings on reading through the Greek NT. But I can’t forget my Hebrew “roots” in seminary. Now that I’m reading through the OT again, I know I will have much to say on that. But for those of who are worried that my long blog title might extend to Sunday Morning Biblical Languages Blog, don’t worry. I like it just the way it is.

Peace & Shalom!

Scott Stocking


Website Powered by WordPress.com.