Sunday Morning Greek Blog

August 25, 2024

Courage for the Battle (John 6:56–69; Ephesians 6:10–20)

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Courage,Ecclesiology,Ephesians,Evangelism,Greek,Isaiah,Jeremiah,John Gospel of,Life of Christ,Miracles,Prayer,Psalms,Spiritual Warfare,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 6:31 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Historical Note: Preached at Mount View Presbyterian Church on August 25, 2024, Omaha, NE.

Related Articles:

I Am the Bread of Life

Take Heart! (θαρσέω tharseō, Matthew 9:2, 22)

Helmet of Salvation (Isaiah 59:17; Ephesians 6:17)

Spiritual Warfare in Ephesians

When I was here last month, I spoke about the feeding of the 5,000, one of the seven miracles that John records Jesus performed during his ministry to go along with the seven foundational “I am” statements that Jesus makes about himself. It is interesting that another one of those seven miracles, Jesus walking on water, which apparently has nothing to do with bread, interrupts John’s account of the miraculous provision of bread at the beginning of John 6 and Jesus’s testimony “I am the bread of life” and what that means for his followers.

There are some “clues,” let’s call them, in John 6 that I want to highlight, because they will be important when we look at the other New Testament reading from the lectionary this morning, Ephesians 6, in a few minutes. The highlight of Jesus’s walking on water, which appears in three of the four gospels, is not Peter getting out of the boat and walking on water himself to Jesus, which only Matthew records, but Jesus’s own comforting words to his frightened disciples as they see him walking across the stormy sea: “Take Heart!” “Take Courage!” “I am. Don’t be afraid!”

This is the second time in John’s gospel where Jesus declares “I am.” The first was with the woman at the well in John 4, his first formal declaration (at least in John’s gospel) of who he is. In that context, that simple declaration, that he was the Messiah, brought incredible freedom to a woman who was haunted by and ashamed of her own past, which in turn gave her the courage to run back to her village and declare that she had indeed discovered the Messiah.

There is no doubt that Peter experienced that same kind of freedom when Christ reached out to him and saved him from his lack of faith as he began to sink into the stormy sea, perhaps a type of what Paul would later say about baptism in Romans 6, that the old man is buried and the new is raised up in the life of Jesus.

This leads into the context of the Gospel passage today. Jesus begins to discuss what it is the disciples are really looking for: food that endures to eternal life. In other words, just as Jesus walking on the water was a supernatural miracle; just as Jesus’s knowledge of the history of the woman at the well was supernatural, so too will our relationship with him have a supernatural quality. In 6:35, Jesus makes the first of his seven foundational “I am” statements that describe who he is: “I am the bread of life,” and he begins to “flesh” that out, some might say literally, as he continues to teach his disciples the significance of that statement.

He connects that statement with the miraculous provision of manna in the desert while the Jews were wandering in the wilderness (v. 41): “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” He is the one who will sustain us if we “feast” on him. He drills down even deeper (v. 51): “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.” The manna sustained them for day. Jesus, as the bread of life, sustains us eternally, something he demonstrated in the feeding of the 5,000. Now I think we all understand that when Jesus starts to sound a bit like a cannibal here, we understand he’s speaking figuratively of himself. He is eternal; therefore he’ll never dry up; he won’t melt away with the morning dew when the heat of the day beats down on the wilderness. He’ll keep providing continuously.

It’s pretty obvious at this point that Jesus is setting the stage for the Last Supper, which is only a few chapters later in John’s gospel. At that supper, Jesus will take the bread and say, “This is my body.” He’ll take the cup and say, “This is my blood.” That’s the zero hour. The next day, day one if you will, Jesus will have his body beaten and shredded with a cat-of-nine-tails before being hung on a cross and crucified for our sins. On the third day, he rises again and fulfills what he said in John 6: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.” He can say this because of the resurrection.

Now a few weeks ago when I took a quick look at the passages for today in the lectionary, I saw this passage and the Ephesians 6 passage. I knew immediately I wanted to preach on Ephesians 6, because that’s my favorite book in the Bible. At first glance, it was difficult to see an immediate connection between these two passages. But as I started to write out my thoughts and analysis of the gospel passage, I began to see more clearly what the connection was, and it comes from Jesus’s words as he walked on the stormy sea: “Take Heart!” It’s easy to say that, but Ephesians 6:10–20 puts meat on the bones of those encouraging words. Listen to the words of Paul:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. [In other words, “Take Heart!”] 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people. 19 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should. [1]

The world around us is pretty crazy right now. Almost like being in a ship that’s getting tossed around by the waves. But the living bread who came down from heaven has granted us power and authority “in the heavenly realms” to “stand” (Paul says this four times) and stand firm in the power of God that dwells in us by virtue of the Holy Spirit. Peter warns us that “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith.”[2] As we break this down, we’ll see that the armor of God is the armor that God is said to “wear” (as if he needs to wear any) in the Old Testament. It’s not a copy; it’s the armor that belongs to God.

So here we go. The first piece mentioned is the belt of truth. Isaiah says of God in 11:5, “5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist.”[3] The primary use of the belt in the Old Testament was for holding up your tunic or robe so you could run into battle or run to get help. Having the belt of truth around our waist helps us move more efficiently in the battle. Since they didn’t have “pants” in the OT, we could make the analogy in today’s world that without the belt of truth, some of us might get caught with our pants down!

Jeremiah speaks of a linen belt that God told him to buy in chapter 13 of his prophecy. At first he wears it around his waist as a belt should be worn, and God commands that it should never touch water. But a few days later, God tells him to take the belt and hide it in the crevice in the rocks near the Euphrates river. Several days later, God told him to go dig it up, but by that time, the linen belt was ruined and good for nothing. We’ve been given God’s truth in his word, the Bible, and if we neglect it, if we fail to “gird up our loins” with it, if we fail to proclaim it when we know we should, it has no value to us. Just as God’s truth holds this world and this universe together, so his word in our lives through the Holy Spirit holds us together and helps us to stand firm.

Let’s look at the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of salvation together, because Isaiah speaks of both in the same verse in chapter 59 of his prophecy, a chapter about sin, confession, and redemption, but also about the justice of God, which was so rarely practiced in his day. Hear his words beginning in the last half of vs. 15:

The Lord looked and was displeased

that there was no justice.

16 He saw that there was no one,

he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;

so his own arm achieved salvation for him,

and his own righteousness sustained him.

17 He put on righteousness as his breastplate,

and the helmet of salvation on his head;

he put on the garments of vengeance

and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak. [4]

This passage is the transition that Isaiah makes from talking about our life on earth to revealing to his readers what the future will look like from chapter 60 on. The language in those last seven chapters of Isaiah at times reminds us of the Book of Revelation, almost as if John had copied sections verbatim into that final book in the Bible. It’s important to note in this context, God is ready to go on the offense.

The breastplate and the helmet are arguably the two most important pieces of the soldier’s protective gear, because they protect the heart and the head, respectively. The heart is the vault of God’s truth in our spirits; the head is where we experience and recognize God’s presence in our lives and distinguish evil from good. We use our minds to speak God’s healing and encouraging words and to cry out for justice. We use our hearts to love and show compassion for the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden.

You will also notice that Paul mentions “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” in conjunction with the helmet at the end of the description of the heavenly armor. The helmet no doubt has its defensive function, but it, along with the rest of God’s armor, give us the confidence to advance against the gates of hell that Jesus promised would not be able to withstand God’s army of faithful followers (Matthew 16:18). The sword looks back to Isaiah 49:2, where the prophet says, “He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me.” Hide his word in your heart so that when times of trouble come, you can recall it with ease.

Finally, we look at the shoes and the shield. The one who had to gird up his loins and run to spread the news of victory needed a good pair of shoes to make the difficult run to spread good news or to call for more help. Isaiah 52:7 puts it best: “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news.”

The shield of faith is the final piece of armor to look at. A Roman shield typically had a leather cover, and the soldier would soak it in water for the express purpose having some defense against real flaming arrows the enemy would use to attack. But the shield also had an offensive purpose as well in that if the Roman soldiers stood side-by-side with their shields touching, it made a nearly impenetrable moving wall that could push the enemy back or circle and surround them. Psalm 91, the one about God being our refuge and fortress, says that God’s “faithfulness will be your shield and rampart” (vs. 4).

In the final part of the Ephesians text, Paul uses a “pray” word five times. It’s as if Paul is saying that everything he’s just been encouraging his readers to do in the last three chapters must be undergird with prayer. A few weeks ago, the pastor at my home church had a pretty convicting message about prayer, and it really got to me, especially with all the family stuff we’ve had going on lately. I needed to be more intentional with my prayer life. Needless to say, it’s been amazing. I can’t go into detail, but I started with some small stuff, at least it seemed small to me, but I started to see answers, mostly positive answers, happening more frequently. Prayer connects us to the “heavenly realms” where the spiritual battle is being fought. When we fight on our knees, or for those of us with bad knees, in whatever position, by asking God to meet our needs and heal our loved ones and give hope to the lost, God moves mightily.

So let me close with a prayer for Mount View this morning, because that’s what ties all this together. Lord, open our hearts to welcome those who are seeking hope and healing in this world and the next; open our hands to be a giving and generous congregation that demonstrates the love of God in our service to others; and open the eyes of those around us to see how mightily you are moving in this congregation and in the lives of the faithful who call this home. In Jesus’s name, amen!

[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.

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

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My views are my own.

August 13, 2024

Debunking The Skeptics Annotated Bible (SAB): Romans 1:3

Filed under: 1 Chronicles,Biblical Studies,Birth Stories,Christology,Luke Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,Reliability of Scripture,Romans,Skeptic's Annotated Bible — Scott Stocking @ 9:49 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

I’m down to preaching on just the last Sunday of the month now, so I thought I’d take a stab at some apologetic articles on my off weeks and make a series out of the posts. I’ve referenced before the work of Steve Wells, The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (SAB), in which he categorizes several different types of what he considers to be deficiencies in the biblical text like perceived or apparent inconsistencies, worldviews that would not have even been considered in biblical times, and things he thinks are ridiculous or silly. He uses the King James Version of the Bible, which is probably in the public domain at this point, so he didn’t even choose a good modern translation to critique. His criticisms reflect an extremely shallow understanding of Scripture and the nature and character of ancient texts generally, so admittedly, his work is low-hanging fruit for those of us who are Bible ninjas when it comes to defending the faith.

Having said that, then, I’ll tackle Romans 1:3 in this article (≠329)[1], but it will lend itself to debunking some of the other related inconsistencies as well.

The first is Romans 1:3, citing the KJV text he uses:

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;[2]

Here’s the 2011 NIV translation of the same verse:

3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life g was a descendant of David,[3]

And since this is a blog about Greek, I’ll throw in the Greek text for giggles.

3 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,[4]

The question Wells asks here about the contradiction is: “Was Joseph the father of Jesus?” Under each entry in the index, he identifies other verses in the Bible that he has labeled with the same number and breaks the list down into the supposed contradictory answers. Interestingly enough, he seems to have his verses mixed up in the index entry, as he lists this particular verse under the “Yes” answer category, while the verses in Gospels for the birth stories of Jesus that explicitly identify Joseph as Jesus’s earthly “father” are under the “No” category.

First of all, basic common sense would leave most people to believe that “seed” is being used metaphorically here, not necessarily in reference to a biological child of the person who produced the “seed,” but more broadly to the concept of “descendant.” In fact, when the word for seed [σπέρμα (sperma), ατος (atos), τό (to)[5]] is not used to mean an actual seed of a plant, it appears in contexts where the concept of having descendants is emphasized (see, for example, Mark 12:20–22, the concept of levirate marriage). So Paul in Romans 1:3 isn’t talking about Jesus’s biological father (bio dad for you young ‘uns), but about Jesus coming from the lineage of David, through which the prophets of the Old Testament declared the Messiah would be born. Pretty straightforward, right?

But let’s not stop there, because if Paul had intended to say David was Jesus’s bio dad, he would have had a perfectly good Greek word to use, and he could have taken it straight from Matthew’s genealogy in Matthew 1:1–17, and as such, I’ll address some other contradictions (≠326 Matthew/Luke genealogy; ≠328 Who was Jesus’s paternal grandfather?; ≠261 Matthew/1 Chronicles genealogies; ≠325 number of generations) Wells identifies, the discrepancy between Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies. The Greek word γεννάω (gennaō), according to Louw-Nida’s reference, means “the male role in causing the conception and birth of a child—‘to be the father of, to procreate, to beget.’ ”[6] So this is yet another proof that there’s no need to identify a contradiction in Romans 1:3, because Paul didn’t use the same term as Matthew there.

But wait! It gets even better! While Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham, the father of God’s covenant people, and ends with Joseph, Luke’s genealogy begins with Joseph and goes backwards to creation and Adam, the first man (of whom Jesus is the archetype, that is, the firstborn of all creation). Matthew’s genealogy probably skips a generation here or there so he can fit it into his three “fourteen generations” pattern (by the way, 3 x 14 = 42, so Jesus is the answer to the question of “What is the meaning of life, the universe, everything?” Some of my readers will get that.). But you can trace the genealogy to a certain historical point from the end of Ruth and in 1 Chronicles 3:10–17.

The standard historical interpretation of Luke’s “alternate” genealogy is that it traces Jesus’s lineage back through Mary and not Joseph. Note that when Luke introduces the genealogy, he says “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23 KJV). But verse 23 is the only time we see the word for “son” in the Greek text. The rest of the genealogy is just the genitive form of the definite article, so it’s literally “Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi…” and so on. “Son of” can be fairly discerned from the context, but it’s possible Luke uses just the definite article to cover his bases in case someone is missing from the genealogy. We know nothing about Jesus’s grandparents on either side, so it’s possible that the simple “of” in the first instance (“of Heli”) is connecting Joseph to Mary’s parents or lineage. After all, in Jewish tradition, the child’s “Jewishness” comes from the mother.

This is just one example of the shallow and rather thoughtless and unscholarly opposition to the truth and integrity of Scripture you’ll find in Wells’ SAB. Your comments made in good faith are always welcome. If you’d like to read more critiques about the SAB, I want to recommend you to my colleague SlimJim’s blog, The Domain for Truth (wordpress.com). He is an outstanding apologist for the faith.

Peace,

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My views are my own.

[1] NOTE: As I go forward in this series, I will “tag” the index numbers so you can easily search for the contradictions among my blog posts.

[2] The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2009. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

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

[4] Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Maurice A. Robinson, and Allen Wikgren. 1993; 2006. The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with Morphology). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

[5] Swanson, James. 1997. In Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.; those of you who know Greek will recognize that the noun is neuter, not masculine or feminine.

[6] Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. 1996. In Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., 1:256. New York: United Bible Societies.

July 28, 2024

The Lord’s “Lunch”: Feeding of the 5000 (John 6:1–21)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Christology,Creation,Exodus,Faith, Faithfulness,John Gospel of,Luke Gospel of,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,Miracles,Thanksgiving — Scott Stocking @ 3:30 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

Historical Note: I preached this message at Mount View Presbyterian Church on July 28, 2024. After the service, the organist, who also manages the rotating schedule of preachers, mentioned to me that the pastor who is the moderator for the Session (church board) had preached on this passage the previous week, even though we’re encouraged to follow the lectionary, and had said the “miracle” of feeding the multitudes was that everyone shared their lunch. As you’ll read/hear in my message, I make no bones about this event being a genuine miracle, and even cited a couple instances where I’d heard this pastor’s particular interpretation many years ago, one of which was from a guest pastor at Mount View when I was in high school (yes, I remember part of a sermon I heard in high school). I had no idea she had put that idea forward when I prepared my message, although I do believe God prompted me to include my own historical experience in my message.
I was standing with my mom when the organist told me that, and they both appreciated that I defended the position that the event was a true miracle of multiplication and providence. They had never heard the “shared-their-lunch” theory before and were a little confused about that, though it’s likely some sharing did happen in such a large crowd. It’s funny but sad that Satan knows Jesus could turn stones to bread but some don’t think Jesus could create bread from nothing.
–Scott

Jesus just wanted some alone time. John’s gospel doesn’t put the events of Jesus’s ministry in chronological order, so we don’t always get the historical context. In the Synoptic Gospels, we see that Jesus was quite busy with his ministry up to this point. He was traveling around healing and working miracles, even raising the dead. He had been confronting the religious leadership, sometimes through his parables. He even settled on his 12 disciples that formed his core group.

But the “triggering” event, it would seem, was the death of a beloved family member. The story of the death of Jesus’s cousin, John the Baptist, precedes the account of the feeding of the 5,000 in the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to be making the point that this was foremost in Jesus’s mind when, as Matthew says (14:13) “he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place,” and Mark and Luke tell us that the disciples went with him.

But Jesus already had quite a following, so it wasn’t easy for him to get away from the crowds. Even though he was in a remote place, the crowd came out in droves, because they wanted to hear more, and Jesus did not disappoint. But as Jesus was wont to do, he just kept teaching because the sheep needed a shepherd. I imagine the disciples had started getting hungry and sensing the crowd’s hunger long before one of the disciples spoke up. John suggests Jesus was setting them up, as he already had in mind to do this miraculous feeding.

I think we all know what happened, but there are a few details of the story that are worth highlighting here. First of all, it’s one of the few accounts of Jesus’s ministry that appears in all four gospels. The main event of the story is the same, but there are some minor differences in the details of the story about who spoke and who acted. Some people might see this as contradictions in the biblical account, but actually it shows that there were four different eyewitness accounts and that each writer mentions specific things. For example, John says Jesus asked how they would get enough bread to feed them. Jesus likely knew that the disciples had been talking amongst themselves about asking Jesus to send the crowd away to get their own food, as in the other three gospels, but John doesn’t mention that.

The agreement among that particular aspect of the story is that Jesus and the disciples seem to have an obligation for the well-being of the crowd. But while the disciples are thinking practically and economically about a solution, Jesus is thinking miraculously and ultimately spiritually, and to a certain extent, ecclesiastically, that is, how he expects the “congregation” to act when they’re together. I’ll dive into that a little later in the message.

Mark adds what seems to be a reference to the Old Testament, just before the Jews received the Ten Commandments at Sinai. Normally we might expect Matthew to add an OT detail. Mark says the people sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties, agreeing with Jesus’s direction in John. This seems to refer to the time when Jethro told Moses that his burden as judge was too great and that he needed to delegate the resolution of disputes to capable men who could manage dispute resolution by appointing “officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties, tens.” That would make things easier for Moses to manage, as the lower officials could handle the small stuff. In the same way, the disciples would have an easier time managing the feeding of about 20,000 people (remember, the story specifies 5,000 “men”), even though at that point, the disciples still apparently had no idea how they would feed that many with a little boy’s lunch.

Now I want to emphasize here that I believe the feeding of the 5,000 was a real miracle of God’s providence for those who were following Jesus. Forty some years ago, some of you may remember the church near us that burned down (North Side??), and Mount View offered to share our building with them so they could continue to hold services. I think for a while we had separate services, then combined services in the summer. I distinctively remember their pastor speaking on this passage and suggesting that the “miracle” here was that everyone in the crowd was so inspired by Jesus thinking he could feed them with five loaves and two fish that they shared their own lunches with everyone around them. A few years later, I read that in one of my seminary text books as well. That’s a nice sentiment, but I. Now I’m relatively confident there actually was some sharing going on in a crowd that large, but if it was whole crowd, how could they have collected twelve basketfuls of broken pieces? Wouldn’t the crowd have kept their own portions for later? And the fact that the disciples and Jesus all seemed to recognize that the crowd didn’t have much food, and that they had stayed there listening to Jesus much longer than anyone had anticipated, tells me that God did indeed miraculously multiply the loaves and fishes for the crowd.

Bread was considered sacred to the Jews, so after a meal, they always had to collect any that was leftover, even if it had fallen on the ground. No five-second rule in that case! That’s the backstory behind the collection after the meal. But it’s worth talking about the baskets as well. Some of you may know that there’s also a story about feeding 4,000 people in Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels, and they picked up seven baskets after that event. The conventional wisdom is that the baskets [κόφινος (kophinos)] in our passage today were probably the disciples’ lunch baskets (perhaps because there were 12 baskets) that they carried with them when travelling, however a few sources think they may be larger. The seven baskets [σπυρίς (spyris)] in the feeding of the 4,000 story were thought to be somewhat larger, but we have no way of knowing for sure in either case. The point is, there was plenty leftover after the miraculous provision, and it’s likely that others collected the leftovers for themselves as well.

I mentioned earlier how these miraculous feeding stories tend to look forward a bit as well, both to their spiritual and practical significance. In John especially, the example Jesus sets here establishes the standard that allows him to say toward the end of chapter 6, after walking on water, “I am the bread of life.” His statement in 6:35 that “Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty” hearkens back to the woman at the well in John 4, where he says those who drink the water he gives would never thirst again. Remember, the Jews considered bread sacred, so when Jesus says he’s the bread of life, he’s saying he’s the life that comes from God and is imparted to us when we believe. Before he says he’s the bread of life, he mentions the manna in the wilderness: that’s what kept the Israelites alive for their 40-year wandering.

Additionally, you don’t need to be a scholar to see the connection with the Lord’s Supper. Jesus took the bread, gave thanks, broke it, and distributed it to his disciples. When they saw him break the bread at the Lord’s Supper, I’m sure every single one of them was reminded of the feeding miracles. “This is my body.” “I am the bread of life.” If they hadn’t already made the connection, they made it at the Lord’s Supper. Jesus would be their life, their salvation, and they were to remind themselves of that when they gathered by taking the bread and the cup. He even says, “Do this in remembrance of me.” That must have mystified some of them, because even though he had been talking about his impending death, even at the Lord’s Supper they probably didn’t realize the time was at hand. He took the sacred ritual of the Passover and redefined it around his own impending sacrifice. No longer would it be about breaking free from the bondage of Egypt over a millennium earlier; now it would be about being released from the power of sin once and for all by his death. “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” It brings forgiveness, hope, and peace.

In a world of traveling by shank’s mare or a real mare, people took their time. That’s why we see in the early church in the book of Acts, believers are meeting together in homes and breaking bread together, both for a meal, as the disciples did at the Lord’s Supper, and for what we know as communion today to remember the Lord’s Supper and his sacrifice. The life of the early church was built around strong community bonds rarely seen today. Back then, their weekly meetings probably lasted a full day when you include the meal and whatever instruction they received from God’s word. Today, most congregations limit their services to about an hour. “Everybody comes and goes so quickly here,” as Dorothy said about Oz. Even with all our fancy technology, we still have trouble staying connected at times.

Regardless of the size of one’s congregation, it’s important that you always work to foster and maintain that sense of community. Your potlucks and quilting bees and other activities are important parts of that sense of community and your identity as a church family. That sense of community and identity helps you discover your purpose and mission as well. Never lose sight of that.

[On the audio: Extemporaneous sidebar on the Walking on the Water passage. Main point: You need to let Jesus into your boat when the storms of life assail you.]

I know some of the best times for me, especially in this past week as my daughter Erin and her husband were preparing to move to San Antonio, are when we can have a leisurely meal at home and then sit around the table and play a board game together. After having her close by for over four years, it will be a while before I’ll get to see her in person again. I will certainly cherish that time, even though I lost every game we played. That doesn’t happen too often.

In our gospel passage today, we see that not only does Jesus have lordship over the food produced on land and in the sea, but he also has lordship and authority over the weather as well by walking on water. Because all authority in heaven and earth has been given to him, he is able to be a high priest who understands our needs and strengthens us where we are weak. He is our Savior, and we praise him for what he has done and is doing in our lives.

The stories of the feeding of the multitudes are not about how Christians can feed the world, but about how God “feeds” us and strengthens us in his Word and affirms us in our salvation. God provides for us, sometimes through our own skill and labor, but other times through his miraculous provision. May we always look to Jesus for the eternal life and hope he offers to us. Amen.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My views are my own.

June 30, 2024

Touch of the Master (Mark 5:21–43)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Christology,Courage,Faith, Faithfulness,Life of Christ,Mark Gospel of,Miracles,Old Testament,Prophet,Psalms — Scott Stocking @ 3:49 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

Click

I think we can all agree that there is great benefit to power of human touch, from the time we’re in our mother’s womb to the day of our death. Scientists know, for example, that a newborn benefits almost immediately from touch. A Psychology Today article summarized one study this way: “Skin-to-skin contact in even in the first hour after birth has been shown to help regulate newborns’ temperature, heart rate, and breathing, and decreases crying” (Ferber, Feldman, & Makhoul, 2008). Another study of Romanian orphans in an understaffed orphanage found that the children that experienced less touch had trouble with physical growth and development. Even having a pet can play a significant role in our need for touch.

A quick search in an artificial intelligence search engine created the following list of benefits from physical contact:

Human touch has the power to12345:

  • Signal safety and trust, and it can be soothing.
  • Calm cardiovascular stress.
  • Activate the body’s vagus nerve, which is intimately involved with our compassionate response.
  • Trigger release of intimacy hormones.
  • Support physical, emotional, and mental health.
  • Increase happiness and longevity.
  • Nurture relationships and overall well-being.
  • Lower blood pressure as well as cortisol, our stress hormone.

From a simple handshake to the more involved “secret society” handshakes, from a fist bump to a pat on the back, from the encouraging side-hug to a full-on hug, from a simple kiss to, well, you know, and even the gentle rough-housing we do with our kids when they’re younger, human touch has the power to affirm, assure, comfort, encourage, empower, gladden, guide, and strengthen us throughout our lives.

When we look at the idea of “touch” in Scripture, we get two very different pictures of the word in the Old and New Testaments. In the OT, more than half the uses of the main word used for “touch” are found in Leviticus and Numbers and are used in the negative, that is, God or the writer prohibits people from touching something that will make them unclean or that is unholy, primarily a dead animal or person. We do have a few positive examples of “touch” in the OT, so I want to highlight those briefly, because they will tie into our main gospel passage this morning.

Here’s an interesting example from 2 Kings 13:21: “Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.”[1] Even touching the bones of a dead holy man was enough to bring someone back to life! It makes you wonder what those who had to carry Jesus’s body from the cross to the tomb must have felt touching his body. Things that make you go “Hmmmm.”

Isaiah is “commissioned” to be a prophet in chapter 6 verse 7 of his book by an angel touching his lips with a burning coal, saying, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

Jeremiah (1:9) didn’t need a burning coal, evidently, as he says, “Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, ‘Now, I have put my words in your mouth.’”

Daniel describes three different “touches” he received during one of his visions (vv. 10, 16, 18)

“A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees.”

“Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak.”

“Again the one who looked like a man touched me and gave me strength.”

Daniel experiences the whole range of human emotions in a few short verses all because of the touch of a powerful angel or likely the preincarnate Christ himself.

Our psalm reading this morning, Psalm 130, doesn’t use the word “touch,” but you can hear the longing to have the Lord draw near to them, as is evident by the psalmist alternating between the personal name of the Lord (Yahweh) and the kingly title “Lord” (Adonai). They want the Lord “near” them so they know he hears them; they want the touch of forgiveness that Isaiah received; their whole being desperately waits for him to appear and confirm their hope in him.

Now the New Testament has quite a different focus for the word “touch.” In the Gospels you can count on one hand the number of times the word touch is NOT used to refer to a healing or to someone being raised from the dead. The prominent use of the word is in the gospels in the context of Jesus healing someone or raising them from the dead. It’s not just a spiritual reality of forgiveness or being gifted the ability to speak God’s word. It is an actual, physical reality that people were healed of diseases and brought back to life by the touch of Jesus’s hand or by someone reaching out to touch him.

This brings us to our gospel passage today. This is the dramatic climax of the first section of the gospel of Mark, where we have one story of an imminent resurrection interrupted by another story of a woman who’s been sick for 12 years. Up to this point in Mark’s gospel, we’ve read about several miracles Jesus has already done. Right after this story is when Jesus returns to his hometown and commissions the Twelve to go out and minister with their own power of a healing touch, especially through anointing with oil.

We pick up the story as Jesus is returning from the other side of the lake where he had just released a man who had been possessed by a legion of demons by casting those demons into a herd of pigs. In most cases, that might be a tough miracle to top, but this is Jesus we’re talking about.

Jesus is immediately met by a large crowd, including a synagogue ruler named Jairus. A synagogue ruler was basically an assistant to the rabbi and handled the administrative tasks of running the synagogue and organizing worship and community activities. He would have been quite well-known in the community and generally respected as much as the rabbi himself. Jesus himself may have even interacted with him a few times leading up to this point, which may be why Jesus didn’t hesitate to go with him immediately when Jairus asked him to heal his daughter.

It would not have taken long for the awareness of Jairus’s request and Jesus’s response to spread through the large crowd, and it would seem they all started getting excited about the possibility of another miracle. As such, they began following Jesus to Jairus’s home.

Meanwhile, the woman who had been sick for 12 years finds herself at the right place and the right time to assimilate into the crowd and try to get her hands on Jesus’s robe, because she thought (or knew?) that if she could just touch his cloak, she would be healed. I don’t think she really expected to be able to even talk to Jesus in her condition. She was probably embarrassed and perhaps may have been unclean because of her bleeding, so a large crowd was the perfect place for her to be anonymous.

But God had other plans for this woman. Even with the crowd clamoring around Jesus and the disciples trying to clear the road ahead of him to get to Jairus’s house, Jesus still realized that something unusual had happened to him in the crowd. He felt the healing power of God go out from him, and immediately he stopped. He turned and asked the crazy question, “Who touched me?” even with hundreds of people around him! The woman realized she couldn’t hide any more, and humbly, meekly stepped forward to “confess” what she had done and the result. Jesus declared her healed because of her faith, and by default her willingness to act on her faith and sent her on her way in peace.

Keep in mind that Jairus is with Jesus this whole time, probably worried about this delay and how it might affect his daughter. And sure enough, his worst fears come true. As Jesus is finishing up speaking to the woman, people from Jairus’s household come and tell him his daughter is dead. “Why bother the teacher anymore?” they say.

But Jesus turns to Jairus and reassures him: “Don’t be afraid; just believe.” Needing to break away from the crowd, Jesus takes Peter, James, and John with him to Jairus’s house while leaving the other disciples to handle crowd control. The mourners had already begun their wailing, and they laugh at Jesus when he says the child is not dead but only asleep.

The small group of those who believed what Jesus could and was about to do remained with Jesus and went into the house. I imagine you could have cut the anticipation with a knife. It’s hard to imagine what was going through the minds of the three disciples and the girl’s parents: Is he really doing this? Are they praying? Stunned? How would you have felt if you were there witnessing this?

I’m sure Jesus himself whispered a prayer to his heavenly father when he stretched out his hand to take hers and simply said, “Talitha Koum”; “Little girl, get up!” No fancy prayer. No $20 religious words or flowery mushy language. Just, “Get up!” And she did! I can’t even imagine how I might have felt witnessing something like this. The disciples had seen a lot of miracles to this point, but this one really had to take the cake. Yet in hindsight, we know that this was only halfway through his story. Not only was this done for the benefit of the girl and her family, but this was also the final teaching moment for Jesus’s disciples before he sent them out on their own. They needed solid evidence of Jesus’s power, and they got it in that moment.

The power of the touch of the master is truly an amazing thing in Scripture specifically and in our lives generally. I have to admit that in all my years of preaching, I’ve never looked into this topic in this kind of depth, and I was encouraged and motivated to present this message to you. I know there have been several times in my own life I’ve clearly heard the call of God, felt his hand of comfort on me, and have seen his heavenly servants at work.

Around the time I graduated from high school, Wayne Watson released a song called “The Touch of the Master’s Hand.” It was the adaptation of 1921 poem by Myra Brooks Welch. The song instantly became a favorite of mine. I want to close out with the second verse and chorus of this song this morning. In the first verse, the auctioneer is trying to sell an old, dusty violin and starts the bidding process on the violin, the last item on the block, with a one-dollar bid request. The second verse goes like this:

Well the air was hot and the people stood around

As the sun was setting low,

From the back of the crowd a gray-haired man,

Came forward and picked up the bow,

He wiped the dust from the old violin

Then he tightened up the strings,

Then he played out a melody pure and sweet, sweet as the angels sing,

And then the music stopped and the auctioneer,

With a voice that was quiet and low,

Said what is the bid for this old violin

And he held it up with the bow.

And then he cried out “One give me one thousand,

Who’ll make it two? Only two thousand; who’ll make it three?

Three thousand twice, now that’s a good price,

So who’s gotta bid for me?”

The people called out, “What made the change? We don’t understand.”

Then the auctioneer stopped and he said with a smile,

“It was the touch of the Master’s hand.”

May you be touched by the Master’s hand as you go from here this morning. Amen.

[1] 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.

May 13, 2024

A Mother’s Courage (Psalm 1; Exodus 2; 1 Samuel 1–2)

Filed under: 1 Samuel,Birth Stories,Courage,Easter,Exodus,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,Luke Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,Prayer,Women in Leadership — Scott Stocking @ 8:41 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Message preached on May 12, 2024, (Mother’s Day; Ascension Sunday) at Mount View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, NE. Scripture readings for the day were Psalm 1 and Luke 24:44–53 (from Ascension Thursday).

I want to read the first half of Psalm 1 again. As I read those three verses, I’d like you to think about someone you know who might fit that description.

1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked

or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,

2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.

3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season

and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.[1]

One person who fits that bill in my life is my mom, and I’m guessing that might be true for some of you as well. I think I can make a pretty safe bet that some of your kids would say that about each of you as well. You know the sacrifices you’ve made, the labors of love you’ve persevered through, and the happy times you’ve provided to give your children a loving environment in which to grow and thrive. Moms, this day is for you, and this message is for you this morning as well.

I want to look at the courage of three mothers in the Bible who faced some incredibly difficult choices, the mother of Moses; Hannah, the mother of Samuel; and Mary, the mother of Jesus. We don’t have many details about their respective backgrounds or their upbringing, but their stories were important enough to memorialize in Scripture, so they’re worth a closer look.

We read about Moses’s mother in Exodus. Moses’s mother and father were Levites, who after the Exodus would live their lives in service of the Tabernacle and later the Temple. Pharoah had given an order that all the Hebrew newborn boys should be thrown into the Nile, reflecting an ancient, barbaric practice known as “exposure.” Exposure involved abandoning an unwanted child in a remote location and letting the wild animals or nature “take its course.” In Sophocles account of Oedipus Tyrannus, such an abandoned child was maimed intentionally to make them less desirable should they happen to survive or be rescued by a more compassionate soul.

Moses’s mother, of course, was too compassionate and loved her child too much to allow something like that to happen to Moses. Even the Egyptian midwives knew that what they were commanded to do—kill all Hebrew male babies at birth—was morally abhorrent. They conspired to tell Pharaoh that Hebrew women gave birth so quickly they had no time to get to the birthing event. She tried to hide Moses for a few months, but when that became impossible to do, she followed through with Pharoah’s edict, sort of.

She placed Moses in a covered basket coated with tar and pitch so it would float on water. The word for “basket” there is the same word used for Noah’s “Ark,” תֵּבָה (tē·ḇā(h)), so there’s an obvious thematic connection there: God’s deliverance. But Moses’s mother was not interested in seeing her newborn die in the Nile. Moses’s mother knew just where to place the basket so it would float right to the spot where Pharaoh’s daughter would bathe and find him. Moses’s mother took an incredible chance at this point, a chance that one of Pharaoh’s soldier could have found the basket first and killed Moses on the spot; maybe even a chance that the crocodiles, if there were any around, would get to him first.[2] She let her child float down the river, under the watchful eye of Moses’s older sister, until Pharaoh’s daughter would find him. In case you’re wondering, yes, the Nile does have crocodiles, but it’s not clear whether they were common in this part of the Nile. I’m guessing not if it was the royal bathing site.

Most of us know the rest of the story. Pharaoh’s daughter rescued Moses from the river, and Moses’s sister was brave enough to approach her to offer the services of his mother as a wet nurse, so she got paid to do her motherly duty! Moses would eventually grow up to be educated in all the wisdom and knowledge of Egypt, making him the perfect “rebel” to lead his people out of Egypt to the Promised Land. Moses’s mother’s incredible courage to keep him alive against the wishes of a tyrant led the most significant event in early Hebrew history, the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt.

From the time of the Exodus and entry into the Promised Land, we jump forward a few hundred years to the end of the period of the Judges. In 1 Samuel, we’re introduced to the family of Elkanah. He is an Ephraimite with two wives: Peninnah and Hannah. Elkanah had children with Peninnah, but Hannah had had no such luck, and in that culture, barrenness was the worst form of shame for a married woman. We learn in the story that Peninnah taunts Hannah relentlessly because she is barren, amplifying the shame Hannah felt. But Elkanah was acutely aware of Hannah’s shame and her desire to have a child, even giving her a double portion of the sacrificial meat after the sacrifice.

At one of these sacrificial meals in Shiloh, Hannah got up and went to pray for a child at “the Lord’s house.” Eli the priest noticed that as she prayed and wept, her lips were moving but he couldn’t hear her voice. He thought she was drunk. Hannah explained that she was in anguish, and it probably didn’t take Eli too long to figure out why, and instead of continuing to chide her for what he thought was a drunken display, he blessed her: “Go in peace, and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked of him.”

We’re not sure of the timeline after that, but it would seem that it happened within the next year, Hannah gave birth to a son and named him “Heard by God,” which in Hebrew is Samuel. Out of her joy, Hannah agreed to dedicate Samuel to the work of the Lord when he was old enough to be weaned, and Eli took him under his wing. Hannah continued to look after Samuel every year, bringing him a new robe at each visit. Hannah was blessed with two more sons and two daughters as well.

Samuel turned out to be a shining light of integrity as a “surrogate” son in the family business of leading in the Tabernacle, especially since Eli’s own two sons were little better than scoundrels. Samuel would be instrumental in the transition from the period where Israel was led by judges to the monarchy and appointment of Saul and then David as kings of Israel. Given the character of most of the judges up through Samuel, it’s difficult to say what would have happened had Samuel, a man after God’s own heart himself, had not come on the scene when Israel went through its transition. We can thank Hannah’s courage and her fervent prayers for the birth and life of Samuel and his faithful work guiding the early monarchs of Israel into its Golden Age.

Hannah’s prayer (1 Samuel 2) after dedicating Samuel to the Lord may sound familiar to some of you. Listen to her prayer and see if doesn’t sound similar to a prayer of another mother who came on the scene about 1,000 years later:

“My heart rejoices in the Lord;

in the Lord my horn u is lifted high.

My mouth boasts over my enemies,

for I delight in your deliverance.

2 “There is no one holy like the Lord;

there is no one besides you;

there is no Rock like our God.

3 “Do not keep talking so proudly

or let your mouth speak such arrogance,

for the Lord is a God who knows,

and by him deeds are weighed.

4 “The bows of the warriors are broken,

but those who stumbled are armed with strength.

5 Those who were full hire themselves out for food,

but those who were hungry are hungry no more.

She who was barren has borne seven children,

but she who has had many sons pines away.

6 “The Lord brings death and makes alive;

he brings down to the grave and raises up.

7 The Lord sends poverty and wealth;

he humbles and he exalts.

8 He raises the poor from the dust

and lifts the needy from the ash heap;

he seats them with princes

and has them inherit a throne of honor.

“For the foundations of the earth are the Lord’s;

on them he has set the world.

9 He will guard the feet of his faithful servants,

but the wicked will be silenced in the place of darkness.

“It is not by strength that one prevails;

10   those who oppose the Lord will be broken.

The Most High will thunder from heaven;

the Lord will judge the ends of the earth.

“He will give strength to his king

and exalt the horn of his anointed.” [3]

Of course, that mother was Mary, the mother of Jesus, and her Magnificat that Luke records in chapter 1 seems to pick up on many of the themes Hannah had highlighted in her own prayer.

In spite of their very similar songs of praise to God, they had quite different circumstances in their lives when their firstborns came along. Hannah was in a committed marriage relationship. It’s not clear why she was one of two wives. If I had to make an educated guess, I’d say Hannah may have been the wife of one of Elkanah’s brothers who passed away, and through the custom of the Levirate marriage, Elkanah would have been obligated to “marry” his brother’s widow and through that marriage provide an heir for his brother, her late husband. You’ll notice that the story doesn’t make any moral judgments about the arrangement. This could explain Hannah’s earnest and seemingly anxious desire to have a son.

Mary, on the other hand, was most likely too young to have thought of herself as barren, especially since she had not formally tied the knot with Joseph at the time she learns she is pregnant with Jesus. She wasn’t asking God for children when the Gospel writers introduce us to her. In fact, having any children was certainly not “top-of-mind” for her. She is shocked but does not respond with disbelief at God’s promise to her. Even though Joseph shows concern for ending the relationship for both their sakes, so he thinks, to save face, Mary cannot escape the fact that an archangel of the Lord had revealed God’s purpose and promise to her, so she presses forward all the while anticipating what was to come.

We don’t hear anything in the Gospel accounts of Mary and Joseph during Mary’s pregnancy until we get to the birth of Jesus in the stable. Luke picks up the story just as they are headed out from Nazareth to his ancestral home in Bethlehem, even though Mary is obviously in the last month of her pregnancy. She and Joseph persevere through the most unlikely place for a baby to be born: an animal stable instead of their comfortable home back in Nazareth. But that night, the shepherds in the nearby fields found out from a heavenly host that the savior has been born, and they hurry to see him that very night in his humble digs.

But her journey is far from over. Luke tells us Jesus was presented on the eighth day at the temple and receives the two blessings from Anna and Simeon, which must have hit her hard, especially the part about causing the rising and falling of many. Matthew tells us that on the heels of that dedication that “magi” from the East come to worship him and bestow him with gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh. I’m guessing that gold would have come in handy when God warned them to flee even further from Nazareth, into Egypt, because Herod, like Pharaoh of old, had ordered all babies under two years old to be killed. They were able to return to Nazareth a few years later.

It must have been quite the challenge for Mary to watch Jesus grow up, I mean, he was the son of God. What kind of behavior would you expect from a kid who had all the fulness of deity dwelling in him? We know from the gospel accounts that Mary never seems to be too far away from Jesus throughout his ministry. Of all the people who knew Jesus and associated with him closely, Mary would have been the one to truly understand his mission, especially when he started talking about his impending death. She may not have wanted to understand, but she couldn’t deny that she did, and yet she faced each day with and for him.

Mary is the only one of the three mothers we’ve looked at this morning to see what happens to her son at the end of his life on earth. Yet her incredible sorrow and anguish at witnessing his crucifixion was transformed to inexpressible joy when she encountered him risen from the dead. I’m not sure that Mary would have picked up on Jesus hinting at his own resurrection, even after finding out Jesus had called forth the recently deceased Lazarus from the tomb.

These three mothers, whose sons had significant ministries and a crucial mission for their own times, exemplified the kind of faith and courage that earn them the designation of Psalm 1:3: “She is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither—whatever she does prospers.”

Today, let us give thanks to God for the faithfulness of mothers who stood by us and with us as we were growing and maturing. We give thanks to you who are faithful mothers who even today give comfort and encouragement to your adult kids and to your grandkids. And let us give thanks for and encourage younger mothers as they face their own unique challenges in raising the next generation. May the peace and love of God be with you all. Amen.

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

[2] It does seem odd that crocodiles aren’t mentioned in this story. Perhaps Pharaoh had a “Croc Patrol” to keep the river clear of them where royalty used it for bathing.

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

April 1, 2024

The PEMDAS Chronicles: Confronting Social Media Ignorance of PEMDAS’s Theoretical Foundation

Filed under: Numbers (Cardinal & Ordinal),PEMDAS — Scott Stocking @ 5:56 pm
Tags: , , ,

I’m gathering links to my PEMDAS posts in one convenient post for easier access. I hope you enjoy.

8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) = 1: Why PEMDAS Alone Is Not Enough

8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) = 1, Part 2: A Defense of the Linguistic Argument

Toward an “Active” PEMDAS: Strengthening Its Theoretical Foundation

8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) = 1: A Discussion with ChatGPT on the Implications of Juxtaposition in Mathematics | Sunday Morning Greek Blog March 23, 2025

Stocking’s Order: Implicit Constructions Correct the Misapplication of Order of Operations | Sunday Morning Greek Blog February 23, 2025

Stocking’s Order: 2(2 + 2) as a Singular Semantic Element | Sunday Morning Greek Blog July 5, 2025

Stocking’s Reciprocation©: Another Definitive Proof 8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) = 1 | Sunday Morning Greek Blog August 4, 2025

Here are a few of my videos on Rumble.

Stocking’s Order: Juxtapositional Grouping Is Foundational

Stocking’s Order; or Why 8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) = 1

Stocking’s Order/Stocking’s Reciprocation: Definitive Proof 8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) = 1 August 5, 2025.

If you’re interested in basic Bible software package from Logos, here’s a link to get my exclusive discount on the product: Logos 10 Fundamentals.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My views are my own.

March 24, 2024

Rigged Trial; Real Redemption (Luke 22:54–62)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Christology,Easter,Isaiah,John Gospel of,Lent,Life of Christ,Luke Gospel of,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,Passion,Psalms,Resurrection,Spiritual Warfare,Trial of Jesus — Scott Stocking @ 7:16 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

I preached this sermon Palm Sunday, March 24, 2024, at Mount View Presbyterian Church.

Click here to save 10% on various Logos Bible Software packages and get five free digital books.

“Lawfare” may be the political “term du jour” but it is hardly a new concept. The first known use of the word has been traced back to 1975, and at the time it referred to actions of an aggressor designed to try to declare military actions against them illegal by using human shields or other uses or misuses of the law to achieve military objectives. It has also been used to describe the attempts of some to question US military actions taken against terrorists, especially after 9/11. In the current climate, it refers to frivolous or unfounded legal action against those who’ve either committed no crime or whose actions did not deserve the level of retribution “the law” has thrown at them.

This doesn’t just affect political candidates or others who go against an “approved” narrative either. Some of you may have heard last week about a woman who was arrested in New York because she changed the locks on the doors of a house she owned to try to get rid of a squatter, someone who had illegally invaded her home and attempted to take possession of it by fraudulent means. The process to eject such people from a home you legally own can take up to two years in some places, and the owner is responsible for spending the money to prosecute the squatter and prove they legitimately own the home, all the while being denied access to their home. “The process is the punishment,” even if you’ve done nothing to deserve it.

As we come to our passage this morning from Luke, Jesus is being arrested after being betrayed by Judas and a violent confrontation in which Peter (at least according to John’s gospel) cuts off the ear of the high priest’s servant, Malchus. Jesus, even while under arrest, reaches out to heal the servant. Peter follows the crowd at a distance to the high priest’s home late that night. Our passage focuses on Peter’s actions outside the residence, but we’ll get to that in a bit. Luke doesn’t give us as much insight into what happened inside the high priest’s home, but other Gospel writers do. It’s there that we see some of the “lawfare” waged against Jesus.

Matthew puts Jesus before the Sanhedrin that evening, while Luke records the concluding element of the all-night trial happening the morning after. The High Priest and the rest of the council sort of back into prophesying that Jesus is the Son of God, especially with Jesus turning the tables on them in Matthew 26:64: “You have said so.” Basically, Jesus is saying that just by them entertaining the possibility that he is the Son of God, they themselves have committed the blasphemy they are accusing Jesus of. In John 11:51, we’re told that the High Priest had unwittingly prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, so he’s again unwittingly confirming Jesus’s true nature and purpose.

Another element of their lawfare was the apparent illegality of the trial. The very judges that condemned Jesus were the same one who bribed Judas to betray him. Technically, they should have been disqualified from judging him. Jewish custom of the day, as recorded in their other writings at the time, forbade capital punishment trials from taking place after sunset. Furthermore, their customs forbade such trials from beginning on the day before the Sabbath, because their custom did have an element of compassion to it in that you couldn’t decide a capital punishment case in one day, and a unanimous verdict was considered possible evidence of conspiracy. Jesus was never given any chance to have an advocate for his defense, either, which was another violation.[1]

All of this was done to fulfill the Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah 53, especially vss. 7–8, which said:

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,

so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.

Yet who of his generation protested?

For he was cut off from the land of the living;

for the transgression of my people he was punished.[2]

One last thing about the trial of Jesus that night. Jesus quotes the Messianic Psalm 110 about being seated at the right hand of God. Psalm 110 is the most-quoted psalm in the New Testament, especially the first four verses:

1 The Lord says to my lord:

“Sit at my right hand

until I make your enemies

a footstool for your feet.”

2 The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,

“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”

3 Your troops will be willing

on your day of battle.

Arrayed in holy splendor,

your young men will come to you

like dew from the morning’s womb. j

4 The Lord has sworn

and will not change his mind:

“You are a priest forever,

in the order of Melchizedek.”[3]

Psalm 110 was also a popular psalm to discuss among the early church fathers in their writings in the first four centuries of the Christian era as proof of Jesus’s messiahship and, especially as used in later parts of the New Testament, proof of his resurrection. Most Jews were not keen on having the Messiah sit at the right hand of God in heaven. They simply saw that as a reference to the authority of the human descendant of David who would sit on the throne. However, at least one prominent rabbi and his followers did use this passage and another one in Daniel to argue that the Messiah indeed was divine in nature. (For an in-depth study of this passage in relation to its use by early Christian writers, see Ronald Heine’s excellent book Reading the Old Testament With the Ancient Church (Baker, 2007) available from Logos Bible Software if you have an account with them or in ebook format through Christian Book Distributors.)

Now we know that at Jesus’s arrest, the disciples scattered, fulfilling Zechariah’s prophecy in 13:7: “Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.” Mark’s account of the arrest has a detail none of the other gospel writers have, that of a young man fleeing naked from the scene of the arrest. Some scholars have suggested that this was Mark himself, the author of that gospel. Even though the gospels say all the disciples scattered, we do know that Peter was able to follow the crowd that had arrested Jesus at a distance, which is where we pick up our main gospel passage this morning.

Now Peter knew from the Last Supper that Jesus had predicted he would deny knowing him three times before the rooster crowed but leave it to bull-headed Peter not to take heed to that, or at least, not to worry about any possible fallout from that. Or maybe it just went right over his head, thinking “Of course I won’t deny him!” The very fact that Jesus predicted that means Jesus knew his trial would be conducted illegally at night. If Jesus had predicted something like that about me, I might have been inclined to go shut myself in a cave somewhere and not speak to or be seen by anyone. But then, wouldn’t that in itself have been a form of denial? Even though Peter was arguably the most well known and the most vocal of the apostles, and thus the most recognizable, he still tried to conceal himself in a crowd outside the high priest’s home.

Sure enough, several in the crowd recognized Peter, first for his appearance and second for his Galilean accent when he protested and denied knowing Jesus. Each time someone called him out as one of Jesus’s followers, the rooster cleared its throat for that fateful crow. Had Peter somehow hoped Jesus’s prediction would be wrong? Or did Peter not realize that roosters always crow around sunrise? I don’t think the crow of the rooster was really a surprise to Peter, though. I believe he knew in his heart his denials, his lack of strength of character to acknowledge that he was a Christ-follower, were piercing his soul and conscience. Two weeks ago, when I spoke on the passage about being ashamed of Christ, I covered this, so I won’t go into again here.

However, I want to look forward a bit to see how Peter came out on the other side of this. Peter apparently had no idea what was going on with the trial of Jesus inside the high priest’s home. If he had been inside the house and had seen how the Sanhedrin was treating him, I wonder if Peter would have spoken up at that point, especially since there was no love lost between the Sanhedrin and the apostles at that point. If two people could have spoken in his defense, the whole thing might have turned out differently. But we know it wasn’t meant to end that way, because as Jesus had been telling his people and as the high priest had predicted, Jesus would have to die for our redemption.

Therein lies the irony of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. A rigged trial ultimately led to our real redemption. Not only was the trial rigged on the Jewish side, but once the Sanhedrin had wrongly convicted Jesus of blasphemy, they knew they couldn’t be the ones to put him to death. Only Rome had the authority to do that. So when they turned him over to Pilate and Herod, did they do so under the charge of blasphemy? Of course not! The Romans didn’t care about their religious disputes. Instead, the Sanhedrin changed the charges to usurpation, that Jesus was claiming to be the king of the Jews. That, they knew, would earn him the death sentence “In the Name of Roman Injustice” (INRI, get it?). The Sanhedrin had to stir up the crowd before Pilate to the point of making him fear a riot in order for Pilate to pronounce the flogging and the death penalty on Jesus, even though the gospels reveal some hesitation on his part to do so.

Jesus was crucified shortly thereafter. The typical method of crucifixion involved breaking the legs of the crucified so they could not push themselves up to breathe, but by the time the guards had gotten around to Jesus, he had already suffocated, according to John’s account (19:31–37). The fact that they only pierced his side but didn’t break his legs[4] was a fulfillment of two prophecies (Psalm 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). The water and blood that flowed from his side was a medical indication that Jesus was in fact dead.

Hebrews 9 gives the ultimate treatise on why blood needed to be shed in order for purification to take place and a covenant to be established. In vs. 19, we’re told that a diluted mixture of the calves’ blood and water was sprinkled on all the people to sanctify them for the new covenant under the Ten Commandments. Verse 22 says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Jesus was the perfect, unblemished lamb of God because he never sinned. Although his body had been thrashed by a cat of nine tails whip, he had no bones broken, so he met the qualifications for the Passover lamb, which happened when God delivered the Jews from slavery in Egypt.

Here’s another connection you may not have considered. In Leviticus, Moses says that certain types of sacrifices, both meat and grain, could be eaten by the priests. When Jesus instituted communion at the last supper, he identified the bread and the wine as his body and blood. When we take communion, that is our way of connecting with the body and blood of Christ, not in the Catholic sense of the elements becoming the body and blood of Christ, but in the sense that we, like the priests, are partaking in the sacrifice first-hand. That’s why we consider communion a “sacrament,” because if we understand its true meaning and the reality behind it, we know that such an act has redemptive power for us. As one Scottish Presbyterian minister in the 18th century said when a woman who was not a member of his congregation asked if she could take communion, the minister replied, “Tak’ it; it’s for sinners.” There’s a spiritual benefit for each of us when we take communion, especially with a proper understanding of its meaning.

Getting back to Peter: he experienced real redemption in several ways after Christ rose from the dead. Jesus appeared to the disciples the very night of the day he was resurrected, and they all received the same blessing and commission from Jesus. John records his encounter with Jesus at the Sea of Galilee after Peter had apparently returned to the life of a fisherman. He asked Peter three times, once for each denial, if he loved him, and Peter emphatically said he did. Peter would go on a few weeks later to deliver the Pentecost sermon that started it all, the birthday of the church. History (or is it tradition?) has it that Peter was eventually crucified upside down on a cross because he didn’t feel worthy of the same kind of crucifixion Jesus suffered.

As Lent comes to a close this week and we embark upon the Easter season and look forward to our birthday celebration of Pentecost, let us not forget the sacrifice of our savior on the cross, and the provisions he made for us upon his resurrection and in the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost. We have a great Savior who has done great things for us, so let us not be ashamed to proclaim his name and his salvation to the world. Amen.

My thoughts are my own.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

[1] See, for example, 10 Reasons Why the Trial of Jesus Was Illegal – Bible Study (crosswalk.com), BibleResearch.org – Twelve Reasons Why Jesus’ Trial Was Illegal, and The Illegal Trial of Christ | Christ.org, accessed 03/22/24.

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

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

[4] The leg bone of the Passover lamb in Exodus was not to be broken either (Ex 12:46).

Postscript: I want to include the study note from Mark 14:53–15:15 from the 2011 version of Zondervan’s NIV Study Bible, because it contains a harmonization of the various Gospel accounts of Jesus’s trials.

Jesus’ trial took place in two stages: a Jewish trial and a Roman trial. By harmonizing the four Gospels, it becomes clear that each trial had three episodes. For the Jewish trial, these were: (1) the preliminary hearing before Annas, the former high priest (reported only in Jn 18:12–14, 19–23); (2) the trial before Caiaphas, the ruling high priest, and the Sanhedrin ([Mk] 14:53–65; see Mt 26:57–68; Lk 22:54–65; Jn 18:24); and (3) the final action of the council, which terminated its all-night session ([Mk] 15:1; see Mt. 27:1; Lk 22:66–71). The three episodes of the Roman trial were: (1) the trial before Pilate (15:2–5; see Mt 27:11–26; Lk 23:1–5; Jn 18:28–19:16); (2) the trial before Herod Antipas (only in Lk 23:6–12); and (3) the trial before Pilate continued and concluded (15:6–15). Since Matthew, Mark, and John give no account of Jesus before Herod Antipas, the trial before Pilate forms a continuous and uninterrupted narrative in these Gospels.

March 22, 2024

How to Use Electronic Concordance Features

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Evangelism,Greek,Hebrew,Hebrews,Reliability of Scripture,Textual Criticism — Scott Stocking @ 8:08 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

This post updates the “huconcordance” document in an earlier blog post, HUB Week 5: πείθω PowerPoint

Electronic Concordance Word Study on πείθω

The original document will remain available, because it has been my most popular print file download in the past few years. This new document adds features from Logos Bible Software, for which I am now an Affiliate partner. Use the link below for a 10% discount on various Logos packages and five free digital books.

Various Logos packages 10% discount!

Peace to you!

Scott

March 16, 2024

8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) = 1, Part 2: A Defense of the Linguistic Argument

Filed under: Numbers (Cardinal & Ordinal),PEMDAS — Scott Stocking @ 12:30 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(NOTE: This article was modified September 1, 2024, to include two new terms I recently coined: “functional monomial” and “operational monomial.” New material is in italics. When I say “PEMDAS” I’m implying Order of Operations (OOO) as well.

My original PEMDAS article has received quite a bit of traffic in the 11 months since I posted it. I’m well over 10,000 views at this point, which for the narrow appeal of my usual topics on this blog, is significant for me. It represented about one-third of the total views I had last year overall. The article has generated enough discussion that has allowed me to continue to fine-tune my arguments and further solidify my position that, bottom line, juxtaposed multiplication takes priority over any signed operations. I want to present a couple different views here, neither of which I feel has been adequately disputed by those who think showing me a page from a grade school math textbook is enough to convince me my arguments are faulty. I’ll start with an even stricter interpretation of PEMDAS then what the online PEMDASians apply, and then I’ll discuss the linguistic and syntactical arguments that has yet to be refuted by the paltry evidence the PEMDASians try to put forth.

A Stricter(!) Application of PEMDAS/OOO

(NOTE: This section is modified from post I made on Facebook to a different expression with similar issues.)

To refresh your memory, here is the expression in question:

8 ÷ 2(2 + 2)

Let’s start at the parentheses level of PEMDAS, shall we? The first step is simple enough. Add 2 + 2 to get 4, leaving us with:

8 ÷ 2(4)

Let’s set aside for a moment that this violates the distributive property to work what is inside the parentheses first, which would imply the expression becomes 8 ÷ (4 + 4} before solving what the parenthetical expression.

You’ll notice that we have parentheses around the 4, so we need to perform the function syntactically suggested by the parentheses, multiplication, to remove them. Notice I say “syntactically,” because math isn’t just about numbers, signs, and symbols; it’s about how those are arranged in an expression. This is the fatal error that the PEMDASians make: They fail to acknowledge the implicit relationships suggested by the presence of the parentheses.

The presence of the parentheses represents two issues: First, the juxtaposition itself implies parentheses around BOTH juxtaposed numbers as a single unit of value. We see this with mixed numbers, where the horizontal juxtaposition of a whole number and a fraction IMPLY addition, yet we treat the mixed number as one value. You’d be hard pressed to find a textbook that always puts parentheses around a mixed number in any expression. We also see this with fractions. Keep in mind that a fraction is not always intended to be a division problem. The figure 3/4 (diagonally juxtaposed with a solidus; or its display equivalent with vertical juxtaposition separated by a fraction bar or vinculum) would typically be pronounced “three-fourths.” The expression “3 ÷ 4” would be pronounced “3 divided by 4.” There is a qualitative difference between the two expressions, and we cannot assume that one substitutes for the other. It would be rare, but not unheard of, to see such a fraction with parentheses around it in an expression, because the fraction, like the mixed number, represents a single value.

The logical conclusion from this line of reasoning is this: If a juxtaposed mixed number is considered a single value and a juxtaposed fraction is a single value, then juxtaposed cofactors that use parentheses around one or more of the numbers to distinguish the values of the cofactors (i.e., “2(4),” “(2)(4),” and “(2)4”) all represent a single value of “twice four” as opposed to “24,” which represents “twenty-four” with no intervening parentheses. The lack of an operational sign (remember, the vinculum and solidus in in-line texts are grouping symbols first and foremost, NOT operational signs; only the obelus is an actual operational sign) in these three formats (implied multiplication, mixed number, display fraction) suggests that these forms do NOT fall with the last four steps of the “order of operations”/PEMDAS and instead should be given a higher priority. I would consider these “functional monomials,” because the function they perform is not explicitly stated by the use of operational signs but by the syntax of the format. This priority is heightened by the fact that when you have to divide by a mixed number or a fraction, you have to manipulate the fraction and the extant operational sign to properly work the expression.

Because “functional monomials” do not use explicit operational signs outside of their use in parentheses, they belong in the first two steps of PEMDAS/OOO where we find other functional monomials that reflect implied operations: powers (e.g., 33) and roots, factorials (e.g., 5!), and trig and log functions (e.g., 2 cos2 x; log10 423), among others. They are calculated before any other operational signs acting upon them and are not disturbed or separated by preceding operational signs. (See below for the discussion of “operational monomials” in contrast to “functional monomials.”

If you accept my first point above, then, this second point is moot, but I’ll address it anyway. We can’t get rid of the parentheses (remember, we’re still in the parentheses step) until we perform the function inherent in the parentheses. The PEMDAS/OOO charts get it wrong when they interpret “inside the parentheses” as only what is in-between the parentheses. “Inside” also means “inherent in the nature of,” so the function of the parentheses must be performed as well in the absence of any extant sign. The parentheses are still present, so we’re still in the parentheses step of PEMDAS. It’s at this point that the PEMDASians want to just simply replace the parentheses with a multiplication sign. But where in the parentheses step does it allow that kind of substitution? You have a syntactical relationship between the 2 and the (4) that simply disappears if one makes such a substitution. That substitution is not a valid or necessary math function when evaluating the written expression! Yes, you must use the multiplication key on a calculator if you really need to use one for this type of problem, but that is a matter of technology and not of math theory. The only way to address the parentheses at this point in the process and finish the parentheses step in PEMDAS is to perform the implicit multiplication first, because the juxtaposition creates an implied set of parentheses around the 2(4). Only then are we done with the parentheses step and are left with the simplified expression:

8 ÷ 8

Which of course equals 1.

Still not convinced that substituting the multiplication sign for the parentheses isn’t valid (except when you’re entering it into a calculator, but we’re not using a calculator here), then consider this. The relationship between the two 8’s is that of a dividend to a divisor only. We wouldn’t look at the way that is written and say 8 is the numerator and the other 8 is the denominator. It’s not written that way. We could only do that if we used a vinculum or fraction bar. As such, then, the vinculum, which is a juxtapositional symbol implying division, creates a unique relationship between the two numbers not implied by the obelus. As such, it’s not a valid substitution! With the vinculum, the numbers represent a part of a whole or the whole divided into parts. (I work in a field that requires a significant amount of government reporting on data, and they are always speaking of the populations in terms of which set is the numerator and which set is the denominator.) If the vinculum is such a juxtapositional tool that it creates or represents a unique relationship between the two numbers, then the parentheses serves the same purpose for multiplication. The 2(4) can’t be reduced to a simple multiplication. Depending on the context in which such an expression might arise, it may refer to a single quantity, like a bundle of 2 packages of golf balls with 4 balls in each package (8 golf balls).

Therefore, the only way one can claim that 8 ÷ 2 is somehow the term multiplied by what is in parentheses is to unequivocally declare it so by putting it in parentheses or constructing it as a block fraction using a vinculum vertically centered on the (2 + 2). As I said above, an expression using the obelus is NOT syntactically or linguistically equivalent to a fraction using the same numbers. Since the PEMDASians have failed to clarify the function of 8 ÷ 2 by enclosing it in parentheses, they do not have any solid ground to stand on to insist the answer is 16. This is where my other new term applies, “operational monomial.” If the problem had been written 8 ÷ 2 x (2 + 2), then those who believe the answer is 16 would have a point, because PEMDAS/OOO rules tell us division comes first, so they would then be correct to say the 8 ÷ 2 is the “term” as they define it that serves as the coefficient to the parenthetical expression. Since the expression uses an extant operational sign, it falls in the last four steps of PEMDAS/OOO, after the first two steps that represent “functional monomials.”

Explaining the Linguistic and Syntactical Arguments

(NOTE: This is copied from a response I made on the original article, with a few minor edits.) When I say there is a “linguistic” or “syntactical” component to the given expression, what I’m talking about is how Merriam-Webster defines the term: “The study of human speech including the units, nature, structure, and modification of language.” I take “speech” to mean the written word as well as the spoken word, especially since as a preacher I’ve gotten into the habit of writing out my sermons so I can make more intentional use of my language as opposed to speaking extemporaneously. And in the context of this article, I don’t just mean words alone, but any symbols or figures that we use to communicate, calculate, or cantillate (how’s THAT for an alliteration!): numbers, punctuation, “character” words (e.g., ampersand, &), mathematical and scientific symbols, proofreading symbols, and even music notation.

All of these elements of language, and linguistics more broadly, have their place in their appropriate contexts, and they are subject to their own respective set of rules for putting them together in a coherent form that communicates the message and meaning we intend subject to the rules and conventions of their respective contexts. When someone composes a musical score, the main melody or tune is subject to certain patterns that follow the chords that underlie the melody. If the tune doesn’t match the chords, it sounds, well, discordant. The notes of the melody, harmony, or even a descant are not strictly random. They typically have some relationship with the chord, and often playing a note that doesn’t exactly fit the chord prefigures a change in the chord or even a change in the key signature. Intentional discordancy is not without significance either, as it can communicate chaos or irrationality.

When we write a sentence, we generally expect a subject and verb to be close together and to arrange direct and indirect objects appropriately with any modifiers or prepositions, and so forth. For example, consider the difference between the three sentences, which have the exact same words.

  1. I eat fish only on Friday.
  2. I eat only fish on Friday.
  3. I only eat fish on Friday.

Sentence #1 is truly ambiguous, because the placement of “only” can be taken either way. Is it “Fish is the only thing I eat on Friday” (akin to Sentence #2) or “Friday is the only day I eat fish” (akin to Sentence #3)? Does that sound familiar in the context of this post? More on that in a bit.

In the original article, I make reference to the relationship between the definite article, noun, and adjective in a Greek adjectival phrase. The position of (or absence of) the definite article impacts how the phrase can be interpreted. I’ll use transliterated words to demonstrate.

  1. kalos logos [beautiful word]
  2. ho kalos logos OR logos ho kalos [the beautiful word]
  3. ho logos kalos OR kalos ho logos [the word is beautiful]

In Greek, Phrase #1, which has no definite article (the indefinite article “a” can fairly be implied absent other contextual clues), would be considered ambiguous by itself. We would need contextual clues to know whether it means “a beautiful word” or “a word is beautiful.” (Greeks do not have to use a form of the copulative verb “to be” if that is the only verb in the sentence.) In Phrase #2, the definite article precedes the adjective, which means the adjective is attributive, that is, it directly modifies the noun (“The beautiful word”). It doesn’t matter if the noun is first or last; it’s attributive either way. Phrase #3 has a predicate construction. This means that the noun is the subject of a sentence, and the adjective would come after the verb in that sentence. In this case, it doesn’t matter where the adjective is, although there may be a nuanced implication one way or the other. Either way, the translation is still “The word is beautiful,” so no difference there.

Given those three examples (music, English adverb placement, and Greek definite article placement), I think anyone who’s reading this is starting to see the bigger picture of how linguistics (in this case, specifically syntax) influences mathematics as well, especially in the context of the expression at hand. So let me use the expression in the same way I used the sample phrases above:

  1. 8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) = 1 (in my worldview and the worldview of those who are of the same mind) OR 16 (in the competing worldview)
  2. (8 ÷ 2)(2 + 2) = 16 (in both worldviews; NOTE: if the expression had been written with (8 ÷ 2) as a block fraction with a vinculum centered vertically on the (2 + 2), there would be no argument that it equals 16; see text for my critique of that, however.)
  3. 8 ÷ (2(2 + 2)) = 1 (in both worldviews)

Expression A seems unambiguous from the perspective of one’s worldview then. But are both worldviews equally valid? We can make arguments from our respective worldviews to try to convince the other side, but it is very difficult to convince one to change their worldview without a powerful defining event that shakes their worldview to the core. Otherwise, we’re comfortable with our ways. I happen to think that several of the arguments I’ve made to support my worldview are quite devastating to the competing worldview, but alas! there has been very little evidence of any change of heart among their hardliners.

Just like the position of adverbs and definite articles, so then is the generous use of parentheses needed to clearly avoid the ambiguity of the given expression. But let me make yet another appeal here for the case that the given expression, in light of my demonstration here, is not really ambiguous at all. The juxtaposition of the 2 to (2 + 2) is akin to Phrase #2 in my Greek examples above. The attachment between the two places them in an attributive relationship (the 2 is the definite article; the (2 + 2) is the adjective). The 2 directly modifies the (2 + 2) by telling us how many of that quantity we need to divide by and keeps the monomial on one side of obelus without an extant multiplication sign. In other words, it isn’t separated from its cofactor by the “action” of the obelus. There is no need for the extant multiplication sign because the relationship is clearly defined. If one were to place a multiplication sign between the 2 and (2 + 2), that would emphasize that the 2 and (2 + 2) are not cofactors and sever the relationship between them. This would make the expression like Greek Phrase #3 above, where the modifier is divorced from what it modifies modified and dragged kicking and screaming all alone into the action of the obelus. That which appeared to modify the (2 + 2) now modifies the 8. The implications of the expression change by substituting the multiplication sign. Additionally, in the case of Greek Phrase #3, if we would add the implied copulative verb where it is not technically needed, that would also place emphasis on the verb and suggest a more nuanced meaning.

Greek verbs demonstrate a similar phenomenon; most Greek verb forms have an ending that tells you what “person” [1st, 2nd, 3rd, or I/we; you/you; he, she, it/they] is the subject of the verb. If there is no explicit subject accompanying the verb, the corresponding pronoun is implied [“He eats”]. If a Greek pronoun is used as the subject, that implies emphasis [“He himself eats”]; so an extant multiplication sign emphasizes the function of the sign over the relationship between the two cofactors when the multiplication is implied by parentheses. The bottom line for the Greek phrases, then, is when you add a word that isn’t necessary for the base form of what you’re communicating, you alter the meaning of what you’re communicating. You also alter the meaning when you add a multiplication sign that isn’t necessary for the basic calculation of the given expression.

This may seem kind of heady to some, but I hope I’ve made my position a little easier to understand. My worldview and what I consider the strength of my arguments here and elsewhere, along with a ton of historical evidence, do convince me that the given expression is unambiguous and has no need for extra parentheses to understand the answer to be 1. For those who think writing ambiguous expressions is somehow educational and instructive when you know there are those who think otherwise, I declare that you have met your match in me. Game over. Checkmate!

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My opinions are my own.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.