Sunday Morning Greek Blog

November 20, 2024

The Greatest Gifts (Mark 12:38–44)

Filed under: Faith, Faithfulness,Giving,Mark Gospel of,Passion,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 8:38 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

This message was preached at Mount View Presbyterian Church in Omaha, NE, on November 10, 2024.

My favorite stories of all time are told by J.R.R. Tolkien in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The main characters in the two stories, Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit and his nephew Frodo Baggins in the Lord of the Rings, are from a race of people called “Hobbits.” They were a short people, too short to mount and ride a standard horse, who lived in a tranquil, almost Edenic part of the fictional land known as “Middle Earth” called “The Shire.” They were a peaceful race enjoying fine tobacco in their pipes, several meals a day (including second breakfast), and well-tended gardens. They were relatively untouched by the evils and political strife in faraway lands like the Misty Mountains, Mirkwood Forest (where there are spiders), and the dark fortress of Sauron in Mordor. They are however fascinated by the Elves who live in those faraway places, as they will sometimes pass through the Shire on their way to the Sea.

They are the quintessential “home bodies,” with a great distaste for adventure and conflict. In spite of this, Bilbo and Frodo are destined to become legends in the great battles against the evil forces that want to take over, dominate, and pillage Middle Earth in their greed and desire for power. Fourteen dwarves show up at Bilbo’s “hole-home” in the Shire one evening and hire him to be their “burglar,” who’s job would be to go into the dragon Smaug’s lair under The Lonely Mountain and retrieve their most prized possession and recapture their home under the mountain. Along the way, Bilbo finds a ring, which happens to be THE ring of power that would be passed on to Frodo, who would after an arduous journey, destroy the ring of power in Mount Doom and thus rid Middle Earth of the Evil Sauron forever.

I love these stories because they show how “the least of us” can have a powerful impact for good in a world seemingly dominated by the wealthy, the politically powerful, and those with great military might or cunning. Many brave, strong, and noble men, elves, and dwarves longed to destroy this power. The problem for Sauron was, he only feared the collective strength of these mighty men, so he was always ready to confront and attack the armies of good. He never suspected that two little Hobbits from the Shire would carry that ring of power right into the heart of his kingdom and cast that ring into the fiery lava of Mount Doom where it was forged.

In our Gospel passage today, we see a stark contrast between the wealthy, self-righteous people, including the religious leaders, and a poor widow who gives two copper coins. For whatever reason, the religious leaders in Jesus’s day had fallen into the “social-status” trap, and they were oppressing the people with a legalistic and inflated “tithe” (two- to three-times a regular tithe), which in some cases may have forced widows to sell their homes just to pay this inflated tithe along with the Roman taxes. In our day, some politicians might call that a “wealth tax,” or a “tax on unrealized gains.” But the religious leaders apparently didn’t care whether you had the cash to cover it. They just wanted their cut, and if they had to “devour widows’ houses” to do it, sobeit.

Herod’s Temple in that day seems to have been an ostentatious place with extravagant decorations. One later tradition claims there were 13 receptacles in the Court of Women where male and female visitors could place their offerings. I do find it to be a bit “curmudgeony” of Mark (and Jesus) to tell us that Jesus sat opposite the tithe collection area while the rich walked around making a big show about their giving and perhaps even their judging about how much certain people might be putting in. He certainly was NOT in a seat of honor; he was just hanging out with his disciples people-watching.

Amidst all the finery the temple and the religious leaders were adorned with, Jesus is looking out for something quite the opposite. What catches his eye? A widow, humbly dressed in old, probably slightly worn clothing (perhaps her best outfit) who approaches one of the fancy offering receptacles, probably worth more than all that woman’s earthly possessions, who deposits two of the smallest coins available, barely worth a nickel. Was she thinking about how the religious leaders seemed to be spending more on themselves than they did the poor? Was she worried about what others who saw her might think about her and her seemingly meager contribution? Was she even worried about her future if she was giving all she had?

My guess is no, she wasn’t concerned about any of that. Her only thought in that moment, at least as Jesus implies, is that she was putting her whole trust in God. Just like the woman with the bleeding condition who reached out just to touch the hem of Jesus’s garment and was healed, this woman reasoned that God would provide for her needs. When you’re down to nothing, the only thing left is faith or despair. She chose faith. We don’t know anything else about this woman’s history, but I’m guessing she must have had an amazing story to part with whatever worldly wealth she had left. She must have some life experience that affirmed her faith. This was the greatest gift she could have given within her means.

This woman understood the concern for the poor in the Old Testament. She knew the promise of Psalm 23:1: “The Lord is my shepherd, I have everything I need.” She understood that God “satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things (Psalm 107:9) when “they cry out to the Lord in their trouble” (vs. 6). She counted on the faithfulness of others who practiced the principles of Isaiah 58:7: to “Share [their] food with the hungry and provide the poor wanderer with shelter.” That chapter in Isaiah may be the basis for the passage in Matthew about not hiding your lamp under a basket but putting it on a stand to give light to the whole world.

Our OT passage this morning, Psalm 146, is pretty clear that caring for the poor and needy is the primary responsibility of the people of God. The psalmist says, “Don’t put your trust in princes…who cannot save.” Like Jehoshaphat in the OT who put the choir out in front of the army as that went out to battle, and in so doing threw the enemy into such confusion that they destroyed themselves, so here in Psalm 146 the psalmist puts praise first: “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, my soul. I will praise the Lord all my life; I will sing praise to my God as long as I live.” The power of praise is immeasurable.

The woman in the gospel story saw her giving, her gift, as a means of praising God. She was expressing thanks with a monetary gift, but I don’t doubt that she knew the psalms of praise as well. She knew how singing or reciting those psalms made her feel in her spirit. She knew how God supported those who felt oppressed or beaten down by a system corrupted by greedy leaders who cared more about rules than about the people they demanded obedience from.

This woman may have heard of Jesus at the time, but she may not have had the same level of knowledge or understanding of who Jesus is or what he came to accomplish as his disciples. After the resurrection the author of Hebrews describes Jesus’s ministry in this way:

24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.[1]

Giving is an act of worship. When we give to the work of the kingdom of God, we participate in the work of the kingdom of God. We give because Christ has given his all. It’s not that we could ever give enough to repay him for that. We can’t. There’s not enough money in the world. That’s what this passage from Hebrews says. Christ went ahead of us to prepare a place for us in heaven. Christ is interceding for us even now as we minister for him on earth.

Christ’s death and resurrection is central to two of the sacraments we hold most dear: Communion and baptism. Communion brings us to the table at Christ’s invitation to remember his body and the covenant in his blood. Baptism connects us to the body and blood of Christ through the symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection. Giving keeps the ministry of the local church and the church at large “solvent” so we can continue to share the good news of Jesus in our communities and around the world.

The author of Hebrews emphasizes that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all. That was his greatest gift to us. Earlier in Hebrews 6, the author warns about recrucifying Christ if we try to “repent” again. The point the author is making that we only need to repent once. In other words, we only need to admit Christ is Lord once. After that, the goal of the Christian life should be to grow into a mature relationship with Christ where you’re not stuck eating “baby food” all the time. At some point, the author of Hebrews expects you get into the meat and potatoes of the Christian walk and become mature. In other words, the answer for backsliding or falling away from living a faithful Christian life is not to repent again, but recommit yourself to maturity.

Part of this maturity is recognizing the second time Jesus comes, not to be put on a cross again, but win the final victory over sin and death and usher us into his eternal home. What a glorious day that will be. Of course, we don’t know when that will happen. Some days lately it seems like that event may be closer than we think. The other days not so much. Our job isn’t to figure out when: our job is to be ready for when it does happen.

Like Bilbo and Frodo, we must walk the walk with courage, strength, and trust in God, all gifts that he imparts to us, especially in the more difficult times. Our ministry of giving is just as important as our ministry of sharing the gospel, of taking communion together as a body, and of baptizing and welcoming new members of the kingdom into our midst. We want that final day to see large throngs welcoming us into our eternal home. May God forever be praised. Amen.

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

September 23, 2024

Losing the “Greatest” Argument (Mark 9:30–37; James 4)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Christology,Greek,James,Mark Gospel of,Passion,Psalms,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 8:50 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Preached Sunday, September 22, 2024, at Mount View Presbyterian Church.

We know Jesus. Amen

We know Jesus wept.

We know Jesus prayed.

We know Jesus healed.

We know Jesus preached the Word of God.

We know Jesus fed 5,000 men and their families.

We know Jesus walked on stormy waters later that evening

We know Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

We know Jesus…caused arguments.

Bet you didn’t see that one coming. At least eight times in Mark 8 and 9, we see some kind of confrontation between people about who Jesus is, and sometimes they say it to his face! Now that takes some real chutzpah to argue with the Savior of the world. Our gospel passage comes at the end of a couple chapters in Mark where arguing plays a prominent role.

Now “arguing” may be too strong a term where the Greek words that translate to it occur. In some cases, the words might be translated “discussing vigorously,” “debating,” or simply “talking.” One of the words implies seeking knowledge together. Another term found a few times in these two chapters is “rebuke,” which suggests a different kind of confrontational discussion. But Jesus seems to be a First Amendment kind of guy: he doesn’t try to shut down their discussion. He’s actually curious about the discussions going on around him.

In 8:17, Jesus asks his disciples why they are arguing about not having bread after just having fed 4,000 people in the previous chapters. They must have given all that extra bread from the feeding to those who were fed. If I’d just fed thousands of people, I think I’d know why I didn’t have any bread! But as usual, the disciples just hadn’t put two and two together yet and missed the big picture of Jesus being the bread of life.

A little later in chapter 8, Peter tries to argue with Jesus (the NIV says he “began to rebuke [Jesus]”) for saying he’d be killed and rise again in three days. Jesus would go on from there and talk about how each one of us must take up our cross and follow him. Not exactly all sunshine and roses. But the reward is priceless.

After the Transfiguration, Jesus continues to speak about his death and resurrection, and of course, the disciples continue to discuss and maybe even argue about what all that means. Then Jesus comes across a group of people arguing about how to help a man’s possessed son. Jesus casts out the demon, and they continue on to Capernaum. Again, Jesus asks them what they were arguing about but they don’t want to fess up. They weren’t arguing about Jesus rising from the dead anymore. Evidently such a feat didn’t seem to suggest any greatness about Jesus in their minds because they were arguing among themselves about which one of them was greatest.

Talk about being clueless! Having that kind of argument given what they’d heard from Jesus recently is like someone telling Abraham Lincoln they brought about the end of slavery because they moved north of the Mason-Dixon line.

So how did Jesus solve the problem? How did he put an end to the silly argument about who was the greatest when Jesus himself was the GOAT? No, he didn’t bring his mother in to set them straight. He put a little child on his knee and said, in so many words, when you welcome the defenseless, the small and seemingly insignificant, the ones who have no power or influence—in other words, “the least”—you welcome Christ and his heavenly father into your life.

James talks about fights and quarrels in chapter 4. Let’s listen to what he says:

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? 2 You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. 3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

4 You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? 6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:

“God opposes the proud

but shows favor to the humble.”[1]

While the disciples’ arguments about rising from the dead were more about “how can this be” and thus more noble and inquisitive discussions, their arguments about who was the greatest are borne out of selfishness, as James alludes to here. I think the key word in the James passage is “covet.” “Thou shalt not covet” seems like an unusual command, because all of the other commands have some tangible object or involve an intentional act against someone. But coveting at first glance almost sounds like a thought crime. The truth is, though, that coveting involves much more than just desiring something.

Coveting involves desiring something that isn’t legally yours or that you can’t legally (or morally) have (taboo) and plotting how you might obtain such a thing or person, often by illicit, litigious, or questionable means. Sometimes those means can be obvious: “I’m going to find a wet spot in the grocery store where I can slip and fall and sue the store.” “I’m going to slam on the brakes so the car behind me rear-ends me and I can get a new car.” “I’m going to buy a hot coffee at McDonald’s and put it between my legs so it burns me.”

Other ways are more subtle. Someone might linger longer talking to the neighbor’s opposite-sex spouse. Or you might borrow something from your neighbor and “conveniently” forget to return it. You can see how James’s words here play out in our modern lives. We get stuck in the rut of thinking first about ourselves—what we want, what we think about someone, what we think things should be like.

Now let’s return to our Gospel text for a minute: We looked at two things they were arguing about in Mark 8–9: Jesus rising from the dead and who was the greatest. But do you notice what other dynamic is playing out here? It may be so obvious as to escape notice. As they’re arguing amongst themselves about what Jesus meant when he said he would rise from the dead, who’s there with them? Jesus! Peter doesn’t bother to ask Jesus what he meant by that; he, and most likely the other disciples, had apparently already come to the conclusion that Jesus was not going to die, at least not any time soon. What is Jesus’s response in Mark 8:33–34? “But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. ‘Get behind me, Satan!’ he said. ‘You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.’”[2] Why did Jesus look at the disciples first and then rebuke Peter? My guess is the disciples had probably put him up to say something to Jesus.

Maybe that was enough to scare the disciples into continuing to talk about Jesus rising from the dead amongst themselves a little later in chapter 9. Again, Jesus is with them, but for whatever reason, they can’t bring themselves to ask Jesus what he meant‽ Isn’t this exactly what James said? “You do not have because you do not ask God.” When you think about it, it’s kind of bewildering that they wouldn’t ask the guy who said that when they’ve been hanging out with him for months.

That’s what makes the argument about “Who’s the greatest?” so odd in our gospel passage today. They get busted by Jesus twice, probably in the space of a few days to a week, for not thinking through the implications of Jesus dying and rising again, so instead of saying, “If Jesus can do that, he must be greatest,” they argue about who amongst themselves is the greatest, as if any of them could lay claim to foreknowledge of their own death and resurrection!

Jesus settles the argument using the example of little child in the crowd. “God opposes the proud, but shows favor to the humble,” as James quoted from Proverbs 3:34: “He mocks proud mockers but shows favor to the humble and oppressed.”[3]

In our deeply divided culture today, it seems like more and more we see arguments on any number of cultural, religious, and social hot-button issues. In some cases, we even see people being shamed, cancelled, or ostracized for believing or not believing a certain way. But this was not Jesus’s way when people did not believe him or fell short in some way. When Jesus told the rich young ruler he’d have to sell everything and follow him, the ruler walked away sad, but Jesus never followed that up with any condemnation for that person individually. When Jesus looked at Peter at the moment Peter denied knowing him for the third time the night before the crucifixion, Jesus didn’t shout across the courtyard “You’re fired!” He never gave any hint of starting a revolt against Roman rule, even though that’s what most Jews were expecting. Jesus saved his harshest words for the religious leaders who were abusing their power and misleading the people.

What can we take away from this today? The Bible does not leave us without solutions. James 4:7–10 gives us a good start:

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.[4]

In a nutshell, focus on God, resist the devil, and humble ourselves. Some scholars have called James the “Proverbs” of the New Testament. If you read the whole chapter of Proverbs 3, you’ll see that James’s words here are a summary of the wisdom in that chapter. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart” (vs. 5). “Don’t let wisdom and understanding out of your sight; preserve sound judgment and discretion” (vs. 21). “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due when it is in your power to act” (vs. 27).

Our reading from Psalm 1 today ties in as well: “Blessed is the one…whose delight is in the law of the Lord….That person is like a tree planted by streams of water.”

The bottom line is, the most important thing we can do for our spiritual maturity and sanity is keep our eyes on Jesus. I say that to myself as much as I’m saying it to you. In my day job, I have the “privilege,” if you want to call it that, of reading and reviewing all the government rules and laws that come out regarding healthcare, so I’ve come to have a pretty strong opinion of some of those policies, and I do actually enjoy that at times. But all of that pales in comparison when I hold it up to the greatness of God and the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Politics and government won’t save anybody in the end. The uncertainty of what’s to come in the next few months is mitigated by Psalm 2 and the fact that we have an eternal home waiting for us, and I want keep my eyes on that prize above all else.

Peace to you all as we dive into autumn! 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.

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.

Scott Stocking. My views are my own.

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.

Scott Stocking

[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.

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.

Scott Stocking

[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 3, 2024

The Eighth Commandment, the Eighth Amendment, and Cancel Culture

Filed under: 1 Peter,Biblical Studies,Courage,Exodus,Government,Hebrew,Romans,Spiritual Warfare,Ten Commandments (Decalogue) — Scott Stocking @ 5:37 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abstract: This article looks at the Eighth Commandment (“Do not steal”), the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights (prohibitions against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment), and how cancel culture and the radical Left’s “lawfare” are violations of those sacred rights and obligations. (NOTE: Copublished on both my sites: Sustainable America and Sunday Morning Greek Blog.)

Background and Basis

Why do so many want the Ten Commandments and depictions of Moses receiving the tablets on Mount Sinai displayed in public buildings? Is it because that event is the most accessible ancient account we have of any kind of law making or law giving, especially as it relates to a standard established by someone beyond ourselves? Is it because many people recognize that our standards of behavior and our culture should not come from the fleeting whims of flawed mankind? Is there a difference between being a “Christian Nation” and a nation founded on enduring Judeo-Christian values?

How are those of us who are followers of Christ to understand Paul’s exhortations in Romans 13:1–7 and 1 Peter 2:13 about being “subject to [human] governing authorities,” especially if those authorities themselves show no evidence of following Christ or even respecting a Judeo-Christian worldview? The United States is, after all, a nation founded on the concept that “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station” that all other nations have. The Founding Fathers appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions” and cite the “Authority of the good People of these Colonies” to declare their independence from the British Crown.

The result of the Declaration of Independence is that the United States adopted the foundational governing document, the U.S. Constitution, in which the United States agrees to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (Article IV, Section 4). Given what both these founding documents say in regards to our form of government, what responsibilities do we bear as we live and work in this Republic?

Because the United States is supposed to be a Republic (“if you can keep it”; Ben Franklin), the Representatives we elect by a democratic process govern at the consent of the governed. So we DO have a say in what our government does and how our government acts. We have a God-given RIGHT to freedom of speech and religion; we have a right to bear arms; we have a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances; we have a right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause.

One important caveat here that I’ll address later: Nowhere in these two documents is the United States ever described as a “democracy.” In a democracy, all citizens vote on everything. We do not have a true democracy in that sense. True democracies in Ancient Greece often led to the power flowing to those who had money and influence and not to the benefit of the people.

One of the practices in those democracies, ostracism, is at the heart of my discussion in the article today. This article compares the Eighth Commandment (by Protestant enumeration), the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and demonstrates how the ancient practice of ostracism by mob rule has crept back into our political landscape, in spite of the Founding Fathers’ attempts to squelch such practices in the Constitution.

The Eighth Commandment in Context

The Eighth Commandment (Exodus 20:15), at least according to Protestant enumeration, simply states “You shall not steal.” It’s just two words in Hebrew; there’s no object of the verb, direct or indirect. However, the two commandments that follow, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, etc.”[1] may give us some clues about the extent of the command, namely, that it is intended broadly not to just include petty theft, but more serious misdemeanors and felonies.

The fact that the last two items focus on “your neighbor,” along with the extended part of the Sabbath commandment, suggests that the focus of the commandments is primarily about what happens within the covenant community of Israel. “Neighbor” is not just the person who lives next door or across the street. A neighbor is someone who is part of your covenant community. They could live near you, or they could be a resident of your town or city, big or small; they could be your coworker; they could be a fellow church member.

One need only to look at Exodus 21 to see that this is a reasonable conclusion. I have written more extensively about this in my post Does the Structure of Exodus 21:1–27 Tell the Patriarchs’ Story?, so I won’t go into too much detail here. I’ll focus on a couple things here. First, “You shall not murder” is not a general prohibition against any form of homicide. It excludes killing in war or self-defense. It focuses primarily on terminating the life of someone unjustly or out of anger, not on accident (see Exodus 21:12–14).

The two edicts about attacking and cursing your parents in 21:15 and 17 are worthy of capital punishment as well, even though they say nothing about whether the parents were killed. Exodus 21:16, however, gives us the important clue for understanding the severity with which the Eighth Commandment is treated. The word used for “steal” in Exodus 20:15 is the same word used for kidnapping in 21:16 (word-for-word translation): “Anyone who steals a man is to be put to death.” This idea suggests to some scholars that perhaps the original commandment had something to do with a more serious form of stealing that could result in the death penalty, but that is not a debate to be solved here.

I mentioned the Ninth and Tenth Commandments. The Tenth Commandment appears to be addressing more of a thought crime, a crime of desire. But many commentators believe “coveting” not only addresses your thoughts, but any illicit plans you might be considering to obtain the things you covet. In other words, coveting is “planning the heist,” fulfilling your desire to “steal” what is not yours. So you can see how the Ninth Commandment also might play into that; trumping up a charge against your neighbor so you can get something that is otherwise rightfully theirs. Proverbs 3:29–30 reflects the tone of these last three commandments:

29 Do not plot harm against your neighbor,

who lives trustfully near you.

30 Do not accuse anyone for no reason—

when they have done you no harm.[2]

What conclusions can we draw from this? First, kidnapping, or “stealing a man,” is about removing someone from their covenant community, especially if you sell them off into slavery as Joseph’s brothers did to him. Joseph’s fate was eventually his family’s fate as famine forced them relocate to Egypt after they learned Joseph had risen to power in Egypt. After the memory of Joseph’s heroic rescue of Egypt through their own famine faded, the Egyptian rulers enslaved the Israelites, thus preventing them from returning to their Promised Land for a time.

Second, murder, of course, removes a person from the covenant community permanently and has additional community issues for the deceased’s family. It may force the family to relocate to a safer place, especially if they are also targets of the murderer. It is the ultimate form of stealing: stealing someone’s very existence.

Third, false accusations, trumped up charges, overcharging someone, or even fabricating charges where there was no harm to anyone can cause reputational damage such as to bring shame or reproach on a person where none is deserved. Middle Eastern cultures, including Judaism, place a great deal of importance on the concepts of honor versus shame. Shame can force you out of your “in group” and cause you to relocate from your covenant community. When the penalties, especially monetary penalties, exceed the nature and seriousness of the alleged crime, this gives the appearance of targeting someone for reasons other than justice.

Those who conspire to violate any or all of these three (at least) commandments work together creating a platform for ostracism. The term “ostracism” reflects the practice in ancient Athens around the 5th century B.C.E. and is based on the use of the pottery shards (ostraka) used to cast votes for those whom they wanted ostracized. But the practice is more ancient than that.

For example, Pharaoh’s enslavement of the Hebrews (Exodus 1:8–14) was a form of ostracism because he feared the power of their growing population. Pharaoh couldn’t control their growing population by enslavement, so he took the ostracism to the next level and ordered the midwives to kill any Hebrew boys as soon as they were born (Exodus 1:15–19), but the midwives rightly had ethical problems with this practice of infanticide (read “post-birth abortions”) and refused to follow through. As a final plague, God punished the Egyptians with Pharaoh’s own edict and killed all the Egyptian first-born males and first-born cattle.

By now, if you’re political aware of what’s transpiring in the 2024 presidential campaign, you’ve probably already figured out where I’m going with this. Let me cut to the chase, then, and switch to discussing the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Eighth Amendment in Context

The Eighth Amendment is short and to the point about the God-given right it enshrines: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” It doesn’t take much of a leap of faith or the exercise of political analysis to see how this Amendment in our Bill of Rights can be understood in terms of the Eighth Commandment. Let me offer another caveat here before I dive in: If someone has committed criminal acts, and there is sufficiently demonstrated probable cause to demonstrate that is the case, then the use of the law to prosecute such persons or entities is fully justified; what I’m discussing here is when such probable cause has not been demonstrated or it’s clear that there is political “lawfare” at work.

When the power of the law is unjustly wielded for political purposes, this is a clear violation of the Eighth and Ninth Commandments. Many people who were peacefully ushered into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, by Capitol Hill police holding the doors open for them are still in jail to this day for their supposed “insurrection.” One man who entered peacefully and conducted himself peacefully committed suicide because the Justice Department trumped up the charges against him without any solid video evidence or other damning evidence.

The J6 protestors were removed from their respective covenant communities simply because they wanted a chance to be heard when they were clearly being ostracized, minimalized, and villainized by the Democrats and media who couldn’t see the obvious corruption right before their eyes. Their “Stop the Steal” signs were evidence of how widely and sincerely We the People did not trust the conduct of the election in several States. We the People believe the election was stolen through nefarious means. None of the challenges raised were ever judged on their merits. This article may eventually be ostracized just for me saying this.

Of course, the latest example of this is the excessive bail imposed on President Trump (with interest accruing daily) on his NY “fraud” trial for acts that had no victims, no financial loss for anyone involved, and positive reviews from those who had financial interactions with him. There was no jury, Trump was often not allowed to defend himself, and only two people were involved in the prosecution: a DA who campaigned on “getting Trump” and a judge who had made documented biased statements against Trump. Their bilateral action against Trump without a jury of peers guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. That is a clear violation of both constitutional law and the biblical commandments. The intent is clear and has been confirmed by the statements of those involved: they don’t want the American people to vote for a popular candidate. They’re trying to run him out of New York and Florida, trying to remove him from his childhood home and his current covenant community.

[I added the following paragraph on 03/04/24 based on a comment from BereanCrossroads. Check out that blog for your encouragement. Much thanks, BC!] The story of Naboth’s Vineyard is a pretty close parallel to what is happening to President Trump with respect to his alleged fraud trial in NYC. I’m kicking myself a bit for not making this connection, especially since one of my better sermons in my early years of preaching was telling that story from the perspective of Ahab. The story is found in 1 Kings 21. King Ahab wanted Naboth’s beautifully curated vineyard, but he was not willing to give up his family’s land and inheritance. Ahab’s wife, Jezebel, arranged a feast for Naboth, but also hired two “scoundrels” who falsely accused Naboth of blasphemy, which led to Naboth’s stoning. Ahab and Jezebel seized his vineyard after that. Ahab humbled himself afterwards but that didn’t last long. Both he and Jezebel suffered the fates that Elijah had prophesied for them (1 Kings 22:29–40; 2 Kings 9:30–37). The story is a perfect example of the what the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Commandments prohibited. You don’t need me to tell you who in the Trump fraud case represents the three main characters of the story of Naboth’s Vineyard.

Cancel Culture

Cancel Culture is a modern-day “revival” of the ancient practice of ostracism. I can remember as far back as the 1990s when I was a campus minister at Northern Illinois University when the buzz-phrase then was “Political Correctness.” You couldn’t say you didn’t agree with mainstreaming homosexual “marriage” without getting the accusation of “hate speech” hurled against you. The problem has gotten much worse since then, with individuals and organizations from all walks of life have been fired from their jobs, deplatformed from YouTube and Twitter, and demonetized by Internet payment services just for expressing political opinions contrary to a certain political point of view or for questioning some of the restrictions and analyses related to COVID. In a nation that has freedom of speech and religion and other God-given rights, we should not have to worry about any consequences for expressing our opinions and beliefs unless they represent a clear and present danger to others.

Cancel Culture is a grievous evil being perpetuated on our society and an obvious violation of both the Eighth Commandment and the Eighth Amendment. Getting fired, being deplatformed, or being demonetized for expressing your political opinion is “cruel and unusual punishment” in a free society. The interesting thing about the Eighth Amendment is that it doesn’t say anything about who is restricted from inflicting “cruel and unusual punishment.” So it just doesn’t apply to the courts. It applies to anyone who perpetuates Cancel Culture.

Lord, let the faithful arise and confront the evils in our society. Let your truth be proclaimed to all people. May your kingdom come and your will be done. In Jesus’s name, AMEN!

Scott Stocking

My opinions are my own.

If you like this article, you may also like the following:

Rachel Weeping: The Objectification of Gender and Children

Toxic Masculinity: Walking Like an Egyptian Pharaoh (2021 Update)

[1] Catholics and Lutherans combine the first two commands (no other gods, no idols) into one and split the “covet” commandments into two, making the one about coveting the house the ninth commandment and the one about coveting everything else the tenth commandment.

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

October 29, 2023

Living the Greatest Commandments (Matthew 22:34–46; Leviticus 19:11–18; Psalm 110:1)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ephesians,Evangelism,Faith, Faithfulness,Leviticus,Matthew Gospel of,Passion,Proverbs,Psalms,Soteriology,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 9:00 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Our gospel passage this morning contains the two most-quoted Old Testament verses in the New Testament. “Love your neighbor as yourself,” from Leviticus 19:18 of all places, is quoted directly 10 times, with one other allusion to it, spread across several books in the NT, not just the Gospels.

Psalm 110:1, which Matthew quotes in the second part of our gospel passage this morning, is the second most-quoted OT verse in the NT, with a total of 8 direct quotes of and another 10 allusions to the passage. But it doesn’t end there. Dozens of early Christian writers in the first 300 or so years after the birth of the church referenced the passage as well.

Jesus uses this verse twice in each of the first three gospels. The first occurrence is what we read here this morning, when he’s speaking to the pharisees during his last week before his crucifixion and claiming that he is the Messiah, son of David, that the OT points to; the second occurrence in each Gospel is when he’s defending himself before the Sanhedrin after his arrest and affirms his place as the preexistent Messiah and descendant of David. That was the statement that caused the high priest to tear his robe and accuse Jesus of blasphemy. Outside of the gospels, the NT writers and early church fathers use it to demonstrate his resurrection and appointment to the right hand of God.

You probably also noticed that Psalm 110:1’s popularity among early Christian writers pretty much forced the ecumenical councils of the day to use a form of the verse in their respective creeds; we read it every week here in the last part of the Apostle’s Creed: “He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.”

Jesus knows his day of crucifixion is coming, so he’s essentially pulling out all the stops now as far as letting people know who he is. No more hints or subtle innuendos: by citing Psalm 110:1 about himself, Jesus is making the ultimate claim that he’s the Messiah come to earth. No stone will be left unturned before he breathes his last on the cross for our forgiveness, and one stone will be rolled away when he rises from the dead for our hope of eternity.

So we can have absolute assurance that Jesus is who he says he is: To the Jews, Messiah; to the Greeks, Christ. He’s the son of God, son of Man, son of David, three descriptions of the same person. He’s the one we can put our total and complete faith in, because we know how great his love is for us. And we owe him our very lives, dedicated to living out the hope he’s given us.

This is where we back up and look at the first part of our passage today for the two greatest commandments he’s left to us. Matthew and Mark place these commandments in Jesus’s mouth during the week before his crucifixion, while Luke has them much earlier, so it would seem, as a lead-in to the Good Samaritan parable.

Because these are the greatest commandments, we must of course be careful not to let the familiarity of these verses make them “trite” to us. Many of us recognize that these two greatest commandments come from the Old Testament. The “Love the Lord you God” passage comes from Deuteronomy 6:5, as Moses begins his final sermon on the Ten Commandments, in which we hear the oft-repeated refrain to “be very careful to obey all I have commanded you.”

This particular verse underwent a couple minor tweaks as it came into the New Testament. In the original passage, Moses says “with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength,” as the NIV translates it. That last phrase about “all your strength” could be translated “all your utmost.” The word translated “strength” there is most commonly translated as “very” or “great/greatly,” so it implies the best of the best of the best, the utmost of the utmost.

In our passage this morning, Matthew changes “strength” to “mind,” which is acceptable given the otherwise generic nature of the original Hebrew. Mark and Luke add “mind” to the original “heart,” “soul,” and “strength” from the Hebrew. Including the word “mind” here is most likely a hat tip to the prolific Greek and Roman philosophers, historians, and statesmen and the knowledge base they had accumulated. That doesn’t mean Jesus agreed with Greek and Roman philosophers, however; it just means he wanted his followers to have some intellectual understanding of how his teachings and way of living were different from theirs.

Now loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind is noble indeed, and should be first on the minds of all Christ followers. But then there’s that second greatest command, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Unlike the greatest command, which is found at the beginning of Moses’s greatest sermon, the “neighbor” command is tucked away in the middle of one of the most exciting books in the Old Testament: Leviticus, chapter 19, vs. 18.

Leviticus 19 reads very much like the Ten Commandments themselves, at least in the early going. But then beginning in vs. 13, after Moses gives the general command not to defraud or rob your neighbor, he begins to break down what that might look like in his “negative” commands. Listen to some of the context leading up to vs. 18, beginning in vs. 11:

11 Do not steal.

Do not lie.

Do not deceive one another.

12 Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

13 Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.

Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.

14 Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.

15 Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

16 Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord.

17 Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.

18 Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.[1]

So NOT doing these things to your neighbor, I suppose, is a passive way of telegraphing your love for them.

The flip side of this, that is, the positive way to state this, is found in other scriptures, notably Micah 6:8:

8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.

And what does the Lord require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy

and to walk humbly with your God.[2]

Proverbs 3:27–30 has some more sage advice about loving your neighbor with a mix of things we should and shouldn’t do:

27 Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,

when it is in your power to act.

28 Do not say to your neighbor,

“Come back tomorrow and I’ll give it to you”—

when you already have it with you.

29 Do not plot harm against your neighbor,

who lives trustfully near you.

30 Do not accuse anyone for no reason—

when they have done you no harm.[3]

There’s no shortage of advice and commands in the Bible about how to love our neighbor. In the New Testament, there are nearly 100 verses about how to treat “one another.” If you have a concordance or good computer Bible software or Internet site that allows you to search, spend some time looking up all of the “one another” passages in the New Testament. It’s eye opening. All kinds of positive ways to love your neighbor: love, serve, greet, submit to, encourage, offer hospitality to, and so on. One interesting fact about this: the Greek word for “one another” (ἀλλήλων) in the New Testament is pronounced “all-LAY-lone”; the easy way to remember this is that “you’re never all alone with “all-LAY-lone.”

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that your quilt ministry, which we’re honoring today, is an important way to love your neighbor as well. Your painstaking efforts in cutting the pieces of fabric, arranging them in the various patterns, and stitching them together put meat on the bones of another scripture, Ephesians 4:28b: “doing something useful with [your] own hands, that [you] may have something to share with those in need.”

With all the help we have in scripture about loving your neighbor, you might think that’s always an easy task. But I think we all know better. Sometimes it’s very easy to love our neighbors; other times, there may be hurts or fears that run so deep that it can be hard to break through. There may also be times where “tough love” means we might have to separate ourselves from a situation because the pain or risk of harm is too great to ignore or too much for us to bear.

In those times, it’s good to know we have a God who loves us unconditionally and whose presence is always with us as we saw in last week’s message. But how can we as mere mortals love an almighty, all-sufficient God who has no “need” for anything from us? Just as God’s presence goes with us, God also desires our presence before him. He wants us to love and honor him with all that we are and could be, all that he’s made us to be, and all that we have, to the extent we are in-line with his commands and precepts.

Our reading from Psalm 1 this morning helps us to understand this relationship. The passage in our bulletin is, I believe, from the New Revised Standard Version. When I saw the first word was “Happy,” I actually cringed inside for a moment, because I knew most translations had the word “Blessed” for the first word. I had always figured that was the traditional word for “blessed” used by the Hebrews in their standard blessing: “Blessed art thou, O Lord, King of the Universe.” But I suspended judgment and checked the Hebrew, and sure enough, it was NOT the typical word for blessing. The word does carry the idea of blessing, but it also refers to an emotional state as well as a spiritual state. One lexicon I looked at had it translated as an exclamation: “How happy!” Eugene Peterson, the Presbyterian minister who translated the Message version of the Bible, picked up on that emotional aspect in his translation of Psalm 1, and I want to read that for you this morning. But I’ll give you a head’s up: if you’ve never read the Message translation, it doesn’t really read like a traditional Bible translation. In fact, Psalm 1 is about as far away from a traditional translation as you can get. The first phrase of Psalm 1 sounds a bit sarcastic, but it’s not intended to be. Listen, and you’ll hear why:

1     How well God must like you—

      you don’t hang out at Sin Saloon,

      you don’t slink along Dead-End Road,

      you don’t go to Smart-Mouth College.

2–3  Instead you thrill to God’s Word,

      you chew on Scripture day and night.

      You’re a tree replanted in Eden,

      bearing fresh fruit every month,

      Never dropping a leaf,

      always in blossom.

4–5  You’re not at all like the wicked,

      who are mere wind-blown dust—

      Without defense in court,

      unfit company for innocent people.

6     God charts the road you take.

      The road they take is Skid Row.[4]

That is how we love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind. We spend time with him by fellowshipping with one another on Sunday and throughout the week in our various ministries we have. We spend time in his word getting to know his precepts, statutes, and commands. We do things that bear fruit for God’s kingdom, for after all, Jesus said his followers would be known by their fruit. We “plant” ourselves in the God’s presence so he can nourish and sustain us, because that is how great his love is for us.

As the world around us continues to get scarier, with another mass shooting, a war in the Middle East that has Christians thinking about end-time prophecies and the book of Revelation again, and the general downhill spiral of morality around us, abiding in the presence of God and rekindling our love for him will become all the more important for our own spiritual security and emotional well-being. We can know without a doubt that God is with us; that’s an unfailing promise. We also know that his word will sustain us, for God’s word never returns void. Grace and peace to you all this morning. 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] Peterson, Eugene H. 2005. The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

October 2, 2023

Obedient Sons (Psalm 25:1–9; Matthew 21:23–32)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Christology,Ecclesiology,Eschatology,Faith, Faithfulness,Matthew Gospel of,Passion,Prophet,Psalms,Repentance,Soteriology,Spiritual Warfare,Work — Scott Stocking @ 10:54 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Message preached October 1, 2023, at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, NE.

What does it mean to trust someone? How does it affect your life when you either learn that you can trust a person, especially someone who might be new in your life, like a new significant other in the life of your kids or grandkids? What does it feel like when someone violates your trust?

Our reading from Psalm 25 this morning lets us know that we can put our trust in God, even in the face of our worst enemies. One thing that is striking about Psalm 25 is that it begins and end with David’s concern that he not be put to shame. In a culture that valued honor above all else, shame could be devastating to someone personally, professionally, and even spiritually. David says the surest guarantee against shame was to put his trust in the Lord. But again, what does that look like? David paints a pretty good picture in Psalm 25, so let’s take a look at that.

First we see that David’s trust involves putting his hope in the Lord. That “hope” in God gives David the confidence to know his enemies will not defeat him. Psalm 25:3 has one of the two negative statements about David’s enemies: they are treacherous without cause, and because of that, they will suffer the social stigma of shame.

But David also shows us the path to avoid shame: He asks God, by his personal name “Yahweh,” to teach him about and guide him in his divine paths. In David’s day, pretty much all he had to go on for spiritual guidance was the Torah itself, the first five books of the Old Testament, and perhaps a prophet or a seer. He didn’t have all 66 books of the Bible like you and I have to keep us on the straight and narrow. David most likely had read the Torah himself a few times during his kingship; his many psalms that he wrote offer ample proof of how well he knew the Torah.

He also asks God to remember the good and forgive the bad. He first asks God to remember his own character, his mercy and his love for his creation. Then he asks God to forget, and essentially forgive, his own sins and shortcomings. But then he asks God to remember him as a person who can’t survive without God’s love.

Verses 6 & 7 here give us a nice concise pattern for a quick prayer should we ever need to utter one. Acknowledge God for who he is and what he’s done; cry out for forgiveness; and ask him to remember us, just as the thief on the cross would do 1,000 years later. The word “remember” here should not be overlooked, since it’s use three times. In the Bible, when God remembers, he acts. So when he remembers his mercy and his love, he shows his mercy and his love. When he remembers us, he loves us and reassures us of our place in eternity with him.

As an aside, there’s another application of that word remember as we celebrate World Communion Day today. What do most communion tables say? “In remembrance of me.” So when we partake of communion later, let us not only remember what Christ has done for us, but act on it by sharing it with others and recommitting ourselves as his followers.

In the last couple verses of our Psalm reading today, David again reminds us of God’s goodness and guidance in the lives of those who humble themselves before him.

These principles from this first part of Psalm 25 tie together our two gospel stories we read this morning. The first passage is an actual account from the life of Jesus as he encounters the Pharisees. The second is a parable targeted at the Pharisees.

The first story takes place the next day after Jesus has made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Do you remember what the first thing Jesus did was after his triumphal entry? He entered the Temple courts and threw out the money changers! And what did he say when he did that? “My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers,” bringing together two quotes from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. Because Jesus’s true father is God himself, and the temple is God’s dwelling place on earth, the Temple is also Jesus’s birthright home. He is the earthly steward of the Temple, not the priests or the religious rulers. Jesus’s first act after entering Jerusalem was to establish his authority over and ownership of the Temple as his rightful home. This sets the stage then, for day two, when the chief priests and the elders of the people ask Jesus where his authority comes from.

It’s interesting in this passage that these religious leaders don’t want to engage Jesus on the Scriptures he cited when clearing the temple. The religious leaders are evidently well aware that they’ve been using the temple as an excuse to place a financial burden on the people. Instead of addressing that fact, they try to do what? They try to assassinate his character! Sound familiar? But Jesus, ever the shrewd one with the religious leaders, comes back with a question of his own, which puts them in a pinch. Either way they answer it, they know they’re in trouble of losing their respect and power with the people. Jesus had already said that John represented the return of Elijah, so that put him above the religious leaders in the eyes of the people. If John’s authority was from God, the religious leaders should have believed him. If it wasn’t, the people knew better and would most likely rebel against the religious leaders. Only a nonanswer could save their skins in the short run: “I don’t recall.”

Because the religious leaders couldn’t answer Jesus’s question, which was a perfectly legitimate response in Jesus’s day according to the rules of rhetoric in Greek culture, Jesus deferred the answer to his question as well. Of course, Jesus had already demonstrated his authority at the Temple the day before, but he had also been demonstrating it all along with his healings and miracles he’d done in full sight of the people and the religious rulers. Any attempt to damage Jesus’s character would result in the same backlash to the religious rulers as either of their answers about John the Baptizer would have. Jesus’s response, then, actually helps the religious rulers save face as well.

Jesus was obedient as a son to his Father by defending both the honor of the Temple and his own honor as the true image of God on earth. In the second story from the Gospel reading today, a parable, we have two sons who would in that culture be expected to do their father’s will when asked. The first one says no, but then later reconsiders and decides to go anyway. The second one says he will go, but he never does. The first and I think most important point from the parable is that God expects us to do his will. There’s really no hiding from that.

At first glance, you might think the parable is about keeping your word to do what you promised. But then, if the son who said he wouldn’t go never actually went, would he really deserve anything for keeping his word if he didn’t do his father’s will? Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? But by the same token, the son who said he would go but didn’t is in a bit of double jeopardy. Not only has he not kept his word, but he’s failed to do his father’s will as well.

The point of the parable, then, is not how or when you do God’s will, but THAT you do God’s will. Jesus goes on to continue the comparison to John the Baptizer’s ministry that he began in the first part of our Gospel reading. The religious leaders had not heeded John’s warnings to repent, but the “tax collectors and the prostitutes” did believe him and they repented, thus gaining access to the kingdom of God. Their past didn’t matter. God accepts those who humbly come to him in repentance seeking forgiveness.

But the more amazing thing is that, even after the tax collectors and sinners began to repent and turn back to God, the religious leaders still refused to repent themselves! They could see the work of God happening right before their eyes, but they couldn’t bring themselves to believe it. Jesus says earlier in Matthew that his followers would be known by the fruit they bear. Those who do his will bear good fruit. Those who do not bear no fruit or bad fruit.

It’s not clear why the religious leaders didn’t see the importance of John’s (and Jesus’s) message of repentance. The biblical story is full of examples from the patriarchs and other men of faith who repented and went on to do great things for God.

Abraham took Sarah’s slave as a second wife and had a child by her, but God still allowed the line of his chosen people to descend from Sarah.

Abraham and Isaac both lied to kings about their respective relationships with their own wives, but God continued to propagate that family line as his chosen people.

Moses directly disobeyed God’s command, yet God still allowed him to finish his task of leading the people to the doorstep of the Promised Land.

David committed adultery and had the husband of the woman killed in battle, but God still used him to lead Israel to greatness and write numerous inspiring Psalms that are still with us today.

Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines, yet God still allowed his wisdom to survive the ages in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon.

In Isaiah’s day, Hezekiah repented while Jerusalem was under siege, and he witnessed the miraculous fatal judgment upon 185,000 of Sennacherib’s soldiers overnight.

Every single one of Jesus’s disciples, with the exception of John, abandoned him on the night of his arrest, and Peter denied knowing him, yet all except Judas were restored to leadership status by Jesus after his resurrection. Peter went on to preach at the birth of the church on Pentecost. The teaching of the apostles was the standard of the early church according to Acts 2:42.

Paul persecuted the early church and tacitly approved of the stoning of Steven, yet God used him to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles, and his letters form a significant portion of our Scriptures today.

Jesus never promised that the path of following him would be without struggle and effort, failure and heartache. When he says, “My yoke is easy and my burden is light,” we can’t forget that we still have a “yoke” on; there’s still fertile ground to plow, and that takes some measure of strength and effort. In researching this passage, I came across an anonymous Jewish parable that the rabbis used to teach a similar point to this one. It goes like this:

The matter may be compared to someone sitting at a crossroads. Before him were two paths. One of them began in clear ground but ended in thorns. The other began in thorns but ended in clear ground….

So did Moses say to Israel, “You see how the wicked flourish in the is world, for two or three days succeeding. But in the end they will have occasion for regret.” So it is said, “For there shall be no reward for the evil man” (Proverbs 24:20)….”You see the righteous, who are distressed in this world? For two or three days they are distressed, but in the end they will have occasion for rejoicing.” And so it is said, “That he may prove you, to do you good at the end” (Deuteronomy 8:16). (Sifre to Deut. 53).[1]

So following God may have its thorny patches in the beginning, but when we get to the end of the road, the path is clear and welcoming. But if we try to go our own way, thinking that might be the easier way, and never get on the right path with God, we can only expect trouble in the end. The tax collectors and prostitutes realized they were on the wrong path and changed their ways and their destination. I know many of you have been on the right path, and you’ve experienced your thorny times, but you are stronger, wiser, and more dedicated to God for that because you know his is and will continue leading your through it. Your obedience will yield a great reward. I would encourage you to remain firm and steadfast on that path.

So we see how the truths of Psalm 25 play out in these two stories from the Gospel of Matthew. If we put our trust in God and allow him to guide us, even through the most difficult times, we will know his reward and his glory. I pray that each of us here will continue on that straight and narrow path that is the road to eternal life. Peace to you all. Amen.

[1][1] Trans. Jacob Neusner, Sifre to Deuteronomy, vol. 1 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), pp. 175‒76.

February 23, 2023

Confronting the Evil Within (Matthew 5:21–37)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Epifanía,Epiphany,Evil,Faith, Faithfulness,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Repentance,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 10:01 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Click the “Play” button above to hear the message.

Sermon preached at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, February 12, 2023, Sixth Sunday after Epiphany in the Revised Common Lectionary.

We’ve seen it before, right? Maybe in a soap opera or in an edgier Hallmark movie, if there is such a thing. It starts with a misstep, maybe innocent, maybe not so innocent. Someone forgets a birthday; the other makes that purchase that there’s no room in the budget for or that sets back the hope of a special trip. The husband is spending too much time in his “cave” watching sports or the news while the wife is struggling in the kitchen or with the kids. Then there’s the “not tonight, honey,” which may come from genuine exhaustion, or worse, maybe that’s the first expression of a spark of anger.

In a marriage, if such anger is left unchecked, or there’s not an immediate recognition that something may be going wrong, things start to happen in our head, and perhaps in our soul. Seeds of doubt may begin to creep in. You think a coworker may be noticing you more; that innocent conversation with someone of the opposite sex in the line at the Starbuck’s or grocery store touches you in such a way that it latches on to one of those seeds of anger or doubt, and the inappropriate desire starts taking root. Now you’re not just thinking that coworker is noticing you more; you’re actively seeking their attention. The woman in line slips you a business card or note with her personal “digits” (that’s phone number for those of us over 40) on the back.

And again, if left unchecked, eventually the ugly truth will come out. At some point, one or both get triggered by something the other does, and there’s an ugly fight. “You don’t pay attention to me anymore!” “You don’t love me anymore!” With each little stumble down the slippery slope, it becomes more and more critical that some kind of intervention is needed. One of two things may happen at this point: the couple realizes their need to turn things around. They make the attempt, oftentimes successful, to reconfirm their oaths or vows to each other, reconcile, and get back on the right track. But unfortunately, sometimes things progress so badly, or the reconciliation gets derailed because of a lack of commitment to it, the “D” word rears its ugly head, and the opportunity for any reconciliation fades into the sunset.

Jesus’s teaching in this part of the Sermon on the Mount really is about setting some boundaries for ourselves.

Now I set up this little scenario not because I want to talk about marriage in my message, but because I thought it might be a fairly concise way to show that the passage we just read from the Sermon on the Mount is not as disjointed as it may seem. I could have just as easily crafted the scenario to fit a friendship or a business relationship. What Jesus says in today’s gospel passage naturally flows from the claim he made in last week’s Lectionary gospel passage:

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”[1]

The apostle Paul puts it this way in Romans 10:4:

4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.[2]

The New Living Translation puts it this way:

4 For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God.[3]

Another way to put this is that the life Jesus lived while he dwelt with us on Earth was the embodiment of the law. He showed people what it meant to live a righteous life in God’s eyes. It wasn’t just about keeping the letter of the law; Jesus here is confronting the lax attitude about the law that seems to have taken hold in his day, perhaps enhanced by the strict legalism of the pharisees. Let’s take a closer look.

Now these passages have some difficult words for us to hear and may bring up some painful memories or even some feelings of guilt, especially for those of us who have been divorced when we get to that passage, but I want to emphasize this: If you are in Christ, who has accomplished everything the Law set out to do, then you share in that accomplishment. You have a share in that righteousness. Your sins have been forgiven and you have the absolute guarantee of eternal life. The old has gone, and the new has come. So take heart in that assurance of new and abundant life as we work our way through this difficult passage.

We’re looking at four of the last six sections of Matthew 5 this morning. You probably noticed that Jesus had a little formula he used to introduce each section: “You have heard people tell you X, but I’m going to tell you Y, and why X is shortsighted.” In the four sections we’re looking at today, Jesus is encountering an attitude that many people still have today about how good they think they are: “I’ve never killed anyone; I’ve never cheated on my wife; I’ve never stolen anything; so I don’t know why God wouldn’t let me into heaven.” What Jesus is saying in these passages is that these “big-time” sins are really just the ultimate expression of the attitude of our hearts.

Jesus first deals with the command, “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder is a technical, legal term that refers to an intentional, illegal or unethical act of taking someone’s life. It doesn’t refer to the defense of one’s self, family, or country; it doesn’t refer to the death penalty justly applied; and it doesn’t refer to accidents. Jesus makes that clear by how he interprets that command: it’s not so much about actually killing someone, although that’s definitely forbidden: it’s about the attitude or disposition of your heart toward a person. Jesus equates getting angry with someone to murder, especially if that anger degrades into some pretty nasty name calling. “Raca” was probably the equivalent in the Hebrew language of a certain word describing a body part people use today. “You fool” comes from the Greek word from which we get the English word “moron.”

Murder is a technical, legal term that refers to an intentional, illegal or unethical act of taking someone’s life. It doesn’t refer to the defense of one’s self, family, or country; it doesn’t refer to the death penalty justly applied; and it doesn’t refer to accidents.

Anger is a natural reaction we have to situations that upset us, but because it’s dangerous to dwell on that anger too much, Jesus exhorts his listeners to deal with that anger quickly by going straight to the person who angered you and work it out, peacefully. Paul recognizes this principle from Psalm 4:4 as well when he says in Ephesians: “Get angry, but don’t sin. Don’t let the sun go down while you’re still angry, and don’t give the devil a foothold.” That’s why anger is just as dangerous as murder, because it allows the devil to get in and wreak havoc on our own lives.

The first paper I did in my first year of seminary was on this next section on adultery. I entitled it “Lusting, Lopping, and Living.” My instructor was so impressed with the title when I proposed it that he said he’d give me an A based on the title! Like murder, the physical act of adultery, having sex with another person in a marriage covenant relationship in violation of your own marriage covenant, was the ultimate expression of despising your covenant. This was not unique to the Jews; many cultures of the day had moral or legal sanctions against adultery.

Jesus again stresses the seriousness of any disposition we might have to take a misstep in the direction of adultery. He uses hyperbole here. He’s not really talking about cutting off body parts or gouging out our eyes. He’s saying cut out of our lives those things that might foster such an attitude. Job said, “I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman.”[4] Martin Luther advised that you can’t keep the birds from flying overhead, but you can keep them from nesting in your hair. Proverbs warns about being seduced by a “wayward” or “adulterous” woman. Many Christians have adopted the principle of never being alone in a room or other confined space with someone of the opposite sex to guard against even the accusation of adultery or impropriety. Maintaining an unimpeachable integrity in this regard requires establishing some pretty strict boundaries.

This brings us to the passage on divorce. Again, having been there myself, I know that those who are divorced go through some pretty serious soul searching. Feelings of failure, guilt, anger, grief, and a host of others are common, but as I said earlier, it’s important to realize that, in Christ, we have all that forgiven and covered by the blood of Jesus. That doesn’t mean all those feelings go away, necessarily, but they begin to pale in comparison in the light of our Savior’s love and healing.

What Jesus is addressing in verses 31 and 32 is not so much the consequences of divorce as he is the seriousness of it. We know from Matthew 19:8 that Moses had permitted writing a notice of divorce because of the hardness of Israel’s hearts. That’s never what God intended. Jesus is saying here that divorce carries several social and perhaps religious consequences with it that could stigmatize both parties permanently, negatively impacting their standing in the community, so be careful about such an “easy out” as writing out a bill of divorce.

Jesus is saying here that divorce carries several social and perhaps religious consequences with it that could stigmatize both parties permanently, negatively impacting their standing in the community.

We do have the writings of the rabbis in Jesus’s day about bills of divorce. One school of rabbis argued that if a wife “spoiled a dish,” that was a legitimate ground for divorce. Other schools were not quite so lenient. It would take some act of marital infidelity or perhaps even abuse or abandonment to justify divorce. In one passage from these writings, there’s a scenario about if a husband writes a bill of divorce and sends it to her by another person, but then changes his mind and gets back to her before the bill of divorce gets to her, he can tell her he’s nullifying the bill of divorce he sent her that she presumably knows nothing about. Yeah, that would go over well. Of course, if he gets there after the bill of divorce arrives, it’s too late to nullify it. These are just some of the examples about how flippantly at times the Jews acted about divorce.

If you know someone who is struggling with divorce, some congregations sponsor an excellent program called Divorce Care. I went through it myself, and it helped me immensely in dealing with all the feelings and emotions I was experiencing. If you need help finding such a group, just let me know. I’d be glad to put you in touch with them, or you can check out divorcecare.org.

Finally, we come to the passage on oaths. I think it’s significant that this passage comes after the divorce section that deals with violating a covenant promise. An oath is different from a covenant in that it typically invoked the name of God, heaven, or some other sacred place or object. Violating an oath thus given would bring shame on the oath maker and insult the reputation of God or other sacred places or article sworn on. Jesus warns it’s better not to make any oath at all and just do what you say you’re going to do, or not do what you say you won’t do. “All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[5]” Here, we can call upon the profound wisdom of Pastor Yoda, I mean, Master Yoda: “Do or do not. There is no try.”

I’m not sure if my youngest daughter had this passage in mind when she and her husband got married a couple years ago. Everything was set up and beautifully decorated in the fairgrounds building where they got married. All the guests were seated, including the ceremonial seating of the parents and grandparents. I gave my permission when the officiant asked (or did he ask me?) and took my seat. He started the ceremony by asking Tim if he took Emma to be his wife, and he said yes. Then he asked Emma if she took Tim to be her husband. She responded yes as well. And without any further ado, the officiant announced that they were husband and wife, and that was the end of the ceremony! It took longer to walk everyone down the aisle than it did to go through the ceremony. No set of vows, no “until death do you part,” or anything like that. Short, simple, sweet. Everyone had the rest of the night to celebrate.

So to sum up here: Jesus’s teaching in this part of the Sermon on the Mount really is about setting some boundaries for ourselves so we can do our part to “deliver ourselves from the evil” around us, to guard against and defend ourselves from dangers within and without that would try to separate us from God. Jesus is fulfilling the promise that God gave in Jeremiah 31:33:

“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord.

“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God, and they will be my people.”[6]

Jesus calls us to not only give God first place in our hearts, but in our minds also, that we might know the heart and mind of God through him and see a lost world through eyes of the Savior who came to redeem his creation. Grace and peace to you all. Amen.

Scott Stocking

My opinions are my own conclusions based on my study of this passage.

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

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

[3] Tyndale House Publishers. 2015. Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

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

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

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

December 21, 2022

“Rachel Weeping”: The Objectification of Gender and Children

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Exodus,Faith, Faithfulness,Genesis,Jeremiah,Prophet,Repentance,Romans,Soteriology,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 7:24 am
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Articles:

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

#ToxicMasculinity: Walking Like an Egyptian Pharaoh

#ToxicMasculinity: Walking Like an Egyptian Pharaoh–2021 Update

Abstract: In this article, I’ll compare the ancient practice of “exposure” to the modern practice of abortion. Then I’ll take a look at two different forms of gender confusion and argue that they are gross misrepresentations and objectifications of children and women.

(NOTE: If you like this post, you may also like μαλακός (malakos) “soft,” “weak,” “effeminate”: A Look at Classical and Biblical Greek Usage.)

The Bible tells us of three major “deliverance” events that had broad-ranging impact on world history. The first was the flood in Noah’s time. God was sorry and “deeply troubled” that he had made man, so he decided to start over again with the one righteous family he could find. God showed no discrimination in that judgment: everyone, young and old, except for the eight people in Noah’s family, died in that flood.

The second was the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt in the time of Moses. I will deal with that more below, but the point I want to make about this is that the birth of the deliverer was preceded by an edict against children. Pharaoh feared the Jews were becoming numerous enough to overthrow Egypt, so he ordered all male children drowned in the Nile. It was, in effect, a primitive and cruel attempt at population control.

The third major deliverance event was, of course, the coming of the Messiah. When the visit from the wise men spooked Herod about the birth of the Messiah, he ordered all male children under two years of age to be killed. So like pharaoh, he acted out of fear and self-preservation. This prompted Matthew to quote a prophecy from Jeremiah 31:15:

“A voice is heard in Ramah,

mourning and great weeping,

Rachel weeping for her children

and refusing to be comforted,

because they are no more.” [1]

In the prophecy, Rachel represents the nation of Israel, the northern kingdom, because Rachel’s grandsons (sons of Joseph—Ephraim and Manasseh) were the two largest tribes in that kingdom. Israel was weeping for its lost innocence.

When I see the outright abuse and evil foisted upon our most vulnerable population by powerful forces with a gruesome agenda, I must echo Rachel’s sentiment here. Is the current war on children, families, and gender the precursor to another deliverance event? Are we getting to the point again where “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart [is] only evil all the time….[and] the Lord regret[s] that he had made human beings on the earth”?[2] Has the corruption reached the limits of God’s tolerance? How close are we to the end of this era and possibly to the second coming of Christ and the new creation?

I want to examine the three most egregious, in my mind, attacks on children, the family, and gender in modern society to make my point: abortion, genital mutilation of children, and transgenderism. My goal here is to strip away the politics and agendas that overshadow these things to both shut out dissent and “normalize” this behavior, and to take a look at it for what it really is. As Christians, if we believe these things are not only bad, but evil, we can, if we start taking a stand and pushing against the evil woke, progressive mob, recover our culture and restore righteousness to the earth. I hope and pray this article will give you courage and strength to make that stand.

Abortion

“Exposure”: The Precursor to Abortion

[710] I will give you a pithy proof of this. An oracle came to Laius once—I will not say from Phoebus himself, but from his ministers—saying that he would suffer his doom at the hands of the child to be born to him and me. [715] And Laius—as, at least, the rumor goes—was murdered one day by foreign robbers at a place where the three highways meet. And the child’s birth was not yet three days past, when Laius pinned his ankles together* and had him thrown, by others’ hands, on a remote mountain.[3]

* fastened together by driving a pin through them, so as to maim the child and thus lessen the chance of its being reared if it survived exposure.[4]

The above passage from the English translation of Sophocles’s Oedipus Tyrannus (spoken by Iocasta, the mother of Laius’s exposed son) describes the ancient and often barbaric practice of “exposure.” In ancient times, if a child was unwanted, or in this case, feared because of some prophetic portent, parents or other elders would abandon the child in the wilderness to die alone, exposed to wild animals and the elements. Notice the eerie dispassionate tone she takes when speaking about the fate of her own child, a fate she seems wholly complicit in.

In the Bible, the practice is at least as old as Genesis 16, perhaps partially reflected in Sarai sending away Hagar and Ishmael. At least Sarai allowed the mother to care for the child (the angel of the Lord almost immediately restored them to Abram’s family unit). In Exodus 2, Moses is born to Levite parents under Pharaoh’s order to throw every male child into the Nile. Moses’s mother technically obeyed this command, but had put him in a papyrus basket, where he would be rescued by Pharaoh’s daughter and raised in Pharaoh’s court, with all the accompanying privileges.

The first chapter of Exodus doesn’t seem to indicate Pharaoh was concerned about any kind of prophecy, although pharaoh’s increased demands of their brick making were compelling the Israelites to cry out more to their God. Pharaoh’s fear of the Israelites was that they were becoming too numerous (Exodus 1:9), which prompted his fateful declaration. In other words, it was a form of population control imposed on an unwanted race of people. Kind of sounds like racism, right? Hitleresque? Legalized infanticide? Homicide of the innocent? Dare I say, “post-birth” or perinatal abortion?

Modern History of Abortion and Genocide

Let me preface this section by saying that I would not consider a medically necessary pregnancy termination to save the life of the mother an “abortion,” especially as that term is used today. If you’re terminating your pregnancy because it’s inconvenient or embarrassing for you, that’s the concept of abortion I’m writing about—the premeditated homicide of an infant prior to or around the time of birth with no indication of a medical emergency that threatens the life of health of the mother. If you’re terminating your pregnancy because your health or life is irreparably threatened, that’s not an “abortion” in my mind, and I’m not writing about those situations. If you’ve been in the dreadful situation of being a victim of rape or of a molestation or incest that resulted in pregnancy, I’m not writing about those situations, and it is not my place (nor anyone else’s) to pass judgment on women in those situations.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an avowed eugenicist and racist. In her twisted mind, it was necessary to leave the procreating to those who had wealth and access. Abortion is just one method the Left promotes to control population under the guise of “women’s rights.” What is even more disturbing are the attempts of the radical Left to promote and glorify abortion. Can we really say a person is “normal” if they’re celebrating the opportunity to kill an innocent child in the womb? What kind of “empowerment” for women is unfettered access to abortion when what they and their abortion doctor are taking power over is a defenseless child in the womb? How did we get here as a culture?

What kind of “empowerment” for women is unfettered access to abortion when what they and their abortion doctor are taking power over is a defenseless child in the womb?

Abortion isn’t just about women’s rights, either. In fact, I would argue that the “antihuman” philosophy has taken over. They have no compassion for the life of the unborn or the mental and physical health of the mother. Their main goal is depopulating the earth. Why? Is it because they want to become some elite group to control all the resources? There’s your eugenics. There are certainly inequities in abortion, with women below the poverty level and women of color getting abortions at a higher rate.[5] So I think it’s fair to ask the question if abortion is being promoted among these demographic groups because of elitist or even racist attitudes.

I also think there’s merit to the idea that the Left just hates the idea of a loving, nuclear family, especially if a child is rescued from an abortion by a loving family. I refuse to believe any child is unwanted. What kind of monsters do these people think the human race is? The Left knows that every child rescued from an abortion by a loving family, regardless of their religious or political affiliation, is potentially a witness against their demand for unfettered abortion access.

All this brings me to my major point about abortion in line with the theme of this article: abortion objectifies the child in the womb. The child becomes an unwanted item when they’re deemed to be an “inconvenience.” The irony of this is that some of these women may have an “unintended” pregnancy because they themselves were objectified by an unscrupulous man who just used them for sex and split the scene. How does it solve a consequence of objectification by objectifying the consequence of objectification?

Gender Confusion

Reassignment or Mutilation?

I am not ashamed of the absolute truths of Scripture, and I hope that my Christ-following brothers and sisters share that boldness. It’s what we need in times like these. When God said “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,” he was talking about individual human beings AND humanity as a collective whole. We, individually and together, reflect the glory and image of God’s creation, because we are the crowning piece of God’s creation. We were created to be stewards over God’s creation. Nothing else in God’s creation was given that status.

Genesis 1:27 speaks of our creation: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” “Mankind” is a singular noun in Hebrew, but it doesn’t necessarily refer to a person’s name. Here, it has the definite article associated with it, so it most likely refers to the human race, or humanity as a concept. The next two lines of the verse bear that out. The first “them” at the end of the second line is singular, and the first two lines are simply a chiasm to emphasize the point that God did the creating. The “them” at the end of the third line is plural, meaning that male and female are separate and the only two genders God created. And each has their own unique sex organs that differentiate based on the possible combinations of the sex genes. The sex organs are analogous: if they’re XX, you get ovaries, labia, and a clitoris; if they’re XY, you get testicles, a scrotum, and a penis.

The current trend of pushing kids—kids, mind you, under 10 years old in some cases—to get so-called “gender reassignment” surgery is absolutely disgusting. This is nothing more than genital mutilation akin to what we rightly condemn in other countries. These surgeries in many cases eliminate the possibility of reproduction because they remove the only sex organs they have. In other words, they’re removing the only phenotypical physical markers of gender and replacing them with a sham. I fail to understand how giving a transgender person parts that have limited functionality can help with gender dysphoria when the person knows their new parts aren’t really genuine. They can never fully realize the physical reality of being the gender they’re not born with.

Not only, then, is this push to get kids to question their gender rather than affirming the gender they were born with an objectification of children, making them pawns in a disturbing practice akin to surgical experimentation on children, it is also an objectification of gender, as if it’s something you can pick and choose or create your own variation thereof. Romans 1:26–27 says:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.[6]

Of course, this most likely refers to consenting adult males and females. But isn’t this exactly the evil we’re foisting on children? We have subjected innocent children to a practice that describes the wrath of God. See what you think about this passage if we put it in the context of what these radical cultural thugs are doing to kids with gender dysphoria:

Because of this, God gave the adults over to shameful abuses of power. Adults coerced the young girls to exchange future natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, adults also coerced the young boys to also abandon future natural relations with women so they would be inflamed with lust for one another. These men and women committed shameful acts upon boys and girls, abused their power and the trust of the children, and should receive in themselves the due penalty for their error.[7]

Seems pretty harsh, doesn’t it? But when what they’re doing to these kids is essentially legalized child abuse, I think the rebuke should fit the crime. These people are perpetuating a cultural lie and have deceived or convinced many that such treatment of children should be normative. If you’re a parent and concerned about how this is impacting your children, or if others are influencing your children under the guise of “trusted adults,” you must be the ones to advocate for your children if you don’t want this happening to them. My purpose in writing this is not to offer counseling advice, especially since each situation would prevent its own unique set of circumstances.

Drag Queens: Objectifying and Degrading Women

As I was preparing to write this section, Tucker Carlson had a story about “A Drag Queen Christmas” show “for all ages.” Video from the performance shows scenes of what you might see in a strip joint. They have to blur out the (apparently) boxed, oversized “breasts” of a drag queen, and there’s a sketch about “Screwdolph the Red-Nippled Reindeer,” which features two men in reindeer costumes simulating sodomy. Some of the drag queens were interviewing kids(!!) in the front row of the show as young as nine years old! Why is it even legal to expose kids to this? This smacks of grooming through and through. A similar event called “Drag the Kids to Pride” happened in Austin and Dallas this past summer, where kids are encouraged to give tips to the drag dancers. Note the signage that’s hardly appropriate for kids.

Then there’s the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. They mock the chastity and poverty of true nuns by their very name, which is nothing more than hate speech against Catholic Christians and especially against Catholic nuns. Many of them paint their faces white. I’m just wondering how that’s any less racist than those who put on black face to mock or imitate black people? Drag is little more than normalized misogyny perpetuated by biological males against genetic females. It is toxic masculinity at the extremes. Why do so many people accept this? This is yet another example of objectifying gender, and especially objectifying women. The trouble is, under so-called diversity, inclusion, and equity, no one ever thinks to look at it for what it is because the wokaholic, “politically correct” (what an oxymoron!) crowd wants to defend their fringe behavior.

Drag is little more than normalized misogyny perpetuated by biological males against genetic females. It is toxic masculinity at the extremes.

Balancing Survival and Compassion

This is going to be hard to take for a lot of people. As Christians, we typically don’t fight by burning down cities, throwing frozen water bottles at the police, or tearing down statues and memorials. We have our words, and we have The Word. The antireligious bigots out there know that, which is why they’re trying so hard to alter the traditional understanding of language, redefine the traditional meaning of words, and hide or rewrite history. This is truly Orwellian. When I read 1984 last year, I could see just about everything that was happening in that forward-looking novel was and still is happening in our world today.

Jesus reserved his harshest words for those religious leaders who oppressed the people by abusing and misusing the cultural power they had as religious leaders. Jesus also treated harshly those who insulted the character of his Father in his Father’s own house by charging a fee to convert Roman coinage into Temple money. Jesus’s kindest and most compassionate words were for those who were oppressed or manipulated by the powerful. I realize there are many people who feel trapped and are doing what they think is best for themselves, not realizing they may be missing a better way or a higher calling because they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge God, or they have a distorted view of who God is and how and why he created the world and each of us to live in it and have dominion over it according to his plan.

My words in this article are intended for those “pharisees” who are arrogant enough to flaunt law and custom to impose a cultural fascism on the rest of us. My words are for those who have willingly “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” and “who freely strut about when what is vile is honored by the human race” (Psalm 12:8). If you’re one of the masses who have been caught up in this because it was popular or trendy or “enlightened,” and you’re just not sensing the satisfaction or peace you were promised, then I urge you to seek out a friendly church where you will be welcomed. As I said, Christians fight with words and ideas, because we know God’s Word never returns void. But we also extend love and compassion to all who desire to know the peace and security of a relationship with a living, loving, forgiving God.

My words and ideas are my own, supplemented with the sources I’ve documented herein.

Scott Stocking

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

[2] The New International Version. 2011. Genesis 6:5b–6. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Sophocles. 1887. The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. Edited with Introduction and Notes by Sir Richard Jebb. Lines 710–719. Edited by Sir Richard Jebb. Medford, MA: Cambridge University Press.

[4] Jebb, Richard C. n.d. Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus Tyrannus (English). Line 718. Medford, MA: Perseus Digital Library.

[5] Dehlendorf C, Harris LH, Weitz TA. Disparities in abortion rates: a public health approach. Am J Public Health. 2013 Oct;103(10):1772-9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301339. Epub 2013 Aug 15. PMID: 23948010; PMCID: PMC3780732. Disparities in Abortion Rates: A Public Health Approach – PMC (nih.gov)

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

[7] Romans 1:26–27. Modified for emphasis.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.