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: 2023 Proper 21, Authority of Jesus questioned, John the Baptist, John the Baptizer, Matthew 21:23-32, Obedience, Obedience as sons, Parable of two sons, Psalm 25:1-9, Sifre to Deuteronomy

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.

Comments (3)

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: 10 Commandments, Adultery, Anger, Divorce, Lust, Oaths, Reconcile, Reconciliation, Sermon on the Mount, Ten Commandments

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:

⁴Christ 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:

⁴For 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.

Leave a Comment

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: Abortion, Exodus 1:9, Exposure, Face-paint racism, Gender transition in kids, Genital mutilation, Jeremiah 31:15, Objectification of children, Objectification of women, Oedipus Tyrannus, Romans 1:26-27, ToxicMasculinity

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.

Comments (2)

August 10, 2022

Having a Heavenly Head: Colossians 3

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Christology,Colossians,Courage,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,Repentance,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 10:20 pm
Tags: Comma in Colossians 3:1, Contrast Sin and Virtue

Listen to “Having a Heavenly Head”

Sermon preached at Mt. View Presbyterian Church July 31, 2022. Lightly edited for publication.

Probably a lot of people were asking each other this past week, “What would you do with a billion dollars?” With one of the largest jackpots ever, who could blame us for asking, right? If I had won it, I’d probably quit my job, go back to school to get my PhD, and spend the rest of my days preaching and writing. I’d also build, or hire someone to build, a really great model train layout so I’d have something entertaining for myself. And of course, my wife and I would travel to the historic sites of the Bible and other great places in the world.

But as Christians, of course, we’d have to be careful that our wishful thinking about a billion dollars doesn’t turn into outright greed. There’s nothing wrong with wealth in and of itself. But perhaps we should ask ourselves a different question if we have any thoughts about buying that longshot ticket to fortune: “What would a billion dollars do to me?”

Jesus addressed that issue with his followers and disciples in several different ways: “What good is it if for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very soul?” (Luke 9:25). In our Gospel reading this morning (Luke 12:13–21), Jesus said to the rich fool, “Life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” Jesus told the pharisees, “You cannot serve both God and Money” (Luke 16:13). He also told a parable about a man who was forgiven thousands of dollars’ worth of debt, but then couldn’t even offer that same forgiveness to someone who owed him a couple hundred dollars (Matthew 18:21–35).

I’ll tell you how I’d answer the question, “What would a billion dollars do to me?” because I’ve thought about it quite a bit, and some of the answers I don’t like. For starters, I think I’d be a little paranoid about people doing all kinds of crazy things to get a piece of the pie. Like claiming to have injured themselves by slipping on the ice in front of my house…in August…when the projected high is over 90 degrees for the next two weeks. I have a mindset that God has me where he wants me, and if I’d win that much money, I might not be doing what God wants me to do anymore. That actually scares me a little. But then again, God can redirect me at any moment he chooses, jackpot or not. I’m not sure I’d tell my kids, either. I want them to know what it’s like to have a career and work for the things that are important to them. That builds character, personality, integrity, and wisdom. I turn 60 in a few months, so I’m thinking more and more about retirement and less and less about working!

But alas, some lucky person in Des Plaines, IL, purchased the winning ticket, so I won’t have to wrestle with that question any time soon, or probably ever. It’s probably a good thing too, because in today’s passage, Colossians 3, Paul warns us about the dangers of greed and inappropriate desires, not to mention a host of other sins and concerning behaviors.

Now to refresh your memories, last week we looked at chapter 2 and how we have fullness and a foundation in Christ that helps us to stand strong in our faith. Paul also used the imagery of baptism to show us how we have been saved from eternal death through the power of Christ’s resurrection that baptism represents. This is where Paul picks up the discussion in chapter 3.

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. ²Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. ³For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. ⁴When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.^[1]

I want to stop there because these four verses are intended to let us know what our standing with Christ is, and I want to break that down a little bit.

I mentioned last week that Colossians and Ephesians have numerous parallel themes. The first verse in Colossians 3 sounds very much like Ephesians 2:6: “And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.” Paul goes on to say in Ephesians 3:6 that we are “sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” In a spiritual sense, then we can live and act with the authority of Christ. That doesn’t mean we’re bossing others around, but it does mean we have the spiritual authority to speak against the evil that Satan tries to throw our way.

When talking about spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6, Paul says we have the full armor of God so we can stand against the devil’s schemes. And that armor isn’t just “standard issue” that any soldier would get. If you look up the Old Testament references to the armor Paul describes in Ephesians 6, you’ll find that in every case, it refers to armor that God himself figuratively wears. We have divine protection in Christ. And corporately, as a congregation, Paul says in Ephesians 1 that we have every spiritual blessing in Christ. How cool is that!

Colossians 3:3 lets us know we’re protected from Satan’s reach by being “hidden with Christ.” This doesn’t mean that we’ll never be tempted or never have bad things happen to us, but that we can have confidence that Christ will see us through whatever may come our way. And at the consummation of his kingdom, we know that we will appear with Christ in glory ready to embark on our eternal journey in heaven.

But until such time as we depart from this mortal life, Paul warns us about several sins and behaviors that tend to lead us into temptation and sin.

⁵Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. ⁶Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. ⁷You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. ⁸But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. ⁹Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices ¹⁰and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. ¹¹Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

This is probably one of the most comprehensive lists in the NT of bad behavior and stinkin’ thinkin’. In Colossians 2:11, Paul says “Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ.” In Ephesians 4:22, Paul says something similar: “²²You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires.”

Now all sin is equal in God’s eyes, so I don’t think the fact that we seem to have two lists here (vss. 5 and 8) can be used to imply some sort of ranking of sins from worst to not-so-bad. Paul seems to suggest in vs. 5 that the sins listed there have to do with our earthly nature, our “body of flesh” as Paul put it in the previous chapter. They also seem to be a little more aligned directly with the Ten Commandments, especially when he equates greed with idolatry. He also specifically says after that list that it is these things that bring on the wrath of God. He seems especially concerned about these, because those sins were apparently once a way of life for the Colossians.

The second list in vs. 8 seems to be more about behaviors that are not related to our bodies of flesh but rather our minds or our learned behaviors that dishonor God and his kingdom. For example, on anger, Paul says in Ephesians 4:26–27: “²⁶Get angry but do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, ²⁷and do not give the devil a foothold.” In other words, it’s not a sin to get angry; that’s a natural response we have to certain situations. Our modern English translations don’t translate the first part of 26 as a command, but that’s what it is in NT Greek text and the Greek translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 4:4. It warns us about dealing with our anger quickly and not “sleeping on it,” as that could give the devil an “in” to make your life miserable. Unresolved anger and grudges can eat away at our souls.

And note that Paul in vs. 9 especially highlights not lying to each other and ties that in with the fact that we’ve put off the old self and put on the new self. Lying, along with all the other sins and bad behavior listed here, are not consistent with a new or a renewed life in Christ. We’re learning how to live, love, and act as Jesus would have, because we’ve been transformed into a new creation in the image of Christ.

In a world that spends a lot of energy looking at diversity, verse 11 becomes all the more important. God doesn’t want us looking at people from a worldly point of view or according to their worldly, innate characteristics. Barbarians were those who didn’t speak Greek and lived primarily in northern and central parts of Europe. Scythians lived north of the Black Sea, in what is now modern-day Ukraine. Both were considered to be quite primitive, and the Scythians were considered especially brutal, little more than wild animals. It’s interesting they’re mentioned here, because their civilization had been overthrown by around 200 BC. Survivors of that culture had evidently migrated south across or around the Black Sea into Asia Minor and especially the area around Colossae. Knowing that, one has to wonder if some of the behaviors described in the previous verses may have been from a remnant of the Scythian peoples as they were assimilated into the culture of Asia Minor.

The only thing that matters, then, is whether we have Christ, who is all in all, and are living according to his standards.

Now it’s not enough just to get rid of the old. It’s important to replace our bad behaviors and stinkin’ thinkin’ with a renewed lifestyle and mindset. In Luke 11:24–26, Jesus gives us this teaching:

²⁴“When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ ²⁵When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. ²⁶Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first.”

If we don’t replace the bad stuff with something positive, we run the danger of letting the bad stuff come in again, and potentially make things much worse for us than before. That’s where Colossians 3:12–17 comes in. Paul doesn’t leave us hanging. He gives us a corresponding list of the good behaviors and the mindset we need to lead a successful Christian life.

¹²Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. ¹³Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. ¹⁴And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

¹⁵Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. ¹⁶Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. ¹⁷And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

That phrase “God’s chosen people” in vs. 12 is not just a nice sentiment or a randomly chosen designation. That’s the same phrase Peter uses in his first letter, chapter 2, verse 9. Peter’s first epistle shares a number of common themes with Ephesians and Colossians as well. “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” This goes right back to the authority Paul says we have because we’re raised up with Christ and seated with him. We’re “being built into a spiritual house” as the body of Christ, “offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God” (1 Peter 2:5).

The list of good stuff sounds very much like the fruit of the Spirit from Galatians. And notice how he puts it: he wants us to “clothe” ourselves in all these good things. This is a direct verbal contrast to our passage last week where he speaks of “putting off” the old self. I think we all know what the virtues listed are, so we don’t need to dive too deeply into that. I will say something about “kindness,” though. There does seem to be a slight difference between being “nice” and being “kind.” A nice person might not want to confront an issue because they don’t want to upset someone, whereas a kind person would confront an issue and give the other person a chance to do better.

I’ll take a recent example from my own life. We had some new siding put on the north side of our house in April, and it didn’t get painted until June. I was looking at the paint job when it was done, and noticed it was patchy; some places either didn’t have a second coat or perhaps they had two batches with a slightly different tint. As I started to look closer at the siding job, I began to notice there were gaps at the seams of the horizontal planks that were not acceptable. It was wavy and uneven. And to boot, some of the nails were already starting to pop through the siding leaving noticeable holes. Basically that would have left me with the same problem I was trying to fix.

If I had decided to be “nice,” I might have said, “Oh well, they did their best, I guess I’ll have to live with it,” and spend thousands more a few years down the road to fix the same problems all over again. But the “kind” thing to do in my mind was to let the company know and give them a chance to make it right. That may be more painful for all involved, especially for the siding company financially, but in the end we’re both better off knowing it’s a job well done.

The point is, these virtues aren’t intended to make us milquetoast. It takes a certain strength of character and a good deal of self-control to be gentle and patient in the face of life’s challenges. It takes courage to bear with each other through the tough times and forgive one another when we’ve been hurt. Even as Jesus was hanging on the cross, he said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they’re doing.”

And just like 1 Corinthians 13, the greatest virtue of all to put on is love. Love covers over a multitude of sin, as Peter says.

And not only are we called to put on new behaviors, but a new mindset as well. “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.” What does that look like? That may be different for each one of us. When we’re ruled by the love and peace of Christ, we are bold evangelists for the good news. Unbelievers will be more inclined to listen to us if our actions are consistent with what we profess to believe about Christ. And I’m sure many of you have heard the adage, “I may not remember what someone said to me, but I do remember how they made me feel.” If we act and speak in the name of the Lord Jesus, the world will see that and perhaps share in giving glory and thanks to God.

So as we go from here today, let’s remember that not only do we have fullness in Christ, but that he’s empowered and equipped us to live lives holy and pleasing to him. Amen.

^[1] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Note that I did not include the comma after “is” as the NIV (2011) version and other versions have it in 3:1. The Greek text appears to be periphrastic, with four words separating ἐστιν and καθήμενος. The NIV and other versions presume that οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν modifies ἄνω. But this makes no sense, since the rest of the sentence doesn’t flow neatly after that. The periphrastic makes the most sense here, because Christ is seated at the right hand of God. It does NOT refer to Paul’s audience, since he addresses his audience in the plural, and the participle is singular. (For comparison, see Ephesians 2:6, where Paul says we are “seated with Christ in the heavenly realms.”) The comma only serves to make this poor English syntax.

Leave a Comment

April 24, 2022

The Coming King: An Exegesis of Revelation 1:1–8

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Chronology,Eschatology,Isaiah,Revelation,Spiritual Warfare,Theology, Biblical,Theophany — Scott Stocking @ 10:50 pm

Listen to “An Exegesis of Revelation”

In the past four months, I’ve explored much about the life of Jesus with you in the Gospels, especially as it relates to the fulfillment of prophecies about Jesus. At Christmas time, of course, we looked at his birth. A couple weeks ago, we looked at some of the prophecies surrounding his triumphal entry and final week up to the crucifixion and resurrection. The Old Testament prophets also told us he would teach in parables (Psalm 78:2||Matthew 13:35).

Variety of Interpretations

Now if you’ve spent much time reading and studying the book of Revelation or the end times in general, you probably know that there are many different views about how to interpret the book, especially as how it relates to the calendar. Views range from the preterists, who believe the end-time prophecies have already been fulfilled, perhaps when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in AD 70, to the postmillennialists, who think Christ will return after a literal 1,000-year reign of the church on earth. Then there are those who think there will be a 7-year period of tribulation prior to Christ’s return and millennial reign, with varying views on when the “rapture,” the transformation of God’s living saints into heaven, happens. And the last major view I’ll mention is that of the amillennialists, who see the church’s current presence on earth as a figurative expression of the 1,000-year reign of Christ, with Christ coming at the consummation of history and establishing his new heaven and new earth.

These differing views have all been put forth by their respective proponents based on well-intentioned study of and meditation on God’s word and historical theology. As someone who spent a great deal of time studying the end times when I was a renewed believer, I’ve seen some of these proponents use the same Scriptures to support their differing views! Add to that that much of the literature on end times is written from an American or Western perspective, but Christians throughout the world at various times and places have at one time or another experienced intense persecution and interpreted the signs of their own respective times such that they thought their generation would be the one to see the return of Christ. So let’s be honest and face the facts—we really don’t have enough solid information to make any absolute statements about when and how Christ will return. And as such, I’m not here this morning to defend any one of these viewpoints.

Setting the Stage

Instead, I believe that the message of the Revelation to John, when taken at the face value of the printed word, is one that can be easily understood. For example, we don’t have to know who or what the four horsemen of the apocalypse represent (or represented) in the historical context (past, present, or future; although we are called to discern those signs); the important thing to grasp is how the events surrounding these players would impact the church, and how the church should respond to those events. So this article, we’ll take a look at the first few verses of Revelation chapter 1 to see how John is setting the stage for us regarding the revelation he received while imprisoned on Patmos, which he recorded for all posterity.

Prologue

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Greetings and Doxology

4 John,

To the seven churches in the province of Asia:

Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits l before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”

and “every eye will see him,

even those who pierced him”;

and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”

So shall it be! Amen.

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” [1]
——Revelation 1:1–8

Defining “Revelation”

First, it helps to know what exactly is a “revelation.” In the biblical sense, a revelation (Gk ἀποκάλυψις apokalypsis) involves making something known that was previously hidden and that could NOT have been known by man prior to its being revealed. In Romans 16:25 and Ephesians 3:3, ἀποκάλυψις refers to a mystery. In Galatians 1:11–12, Paul claims to have received the Gospel not from any human source, but directly from Christ. This lines up with the testimony from Acts 9 when Paul is confronted by the risen Christ on the road to Damascus and his own testimony that he waited at least three years before going fully public with his conversion to Peter and James.

Revelation is a broad category. A revelation may simply be a statement from God about the truth; some sort of physical sign that appears in the natural world; or a “vision,” which in modern technological terms is similar to a 3-D interactive hologram, except some of the people and things in the vision may have some physical substance to them that the person actually experiences. Usually a vision is limited to one person, and is almost always accompanied by a messenger or angel, as in the current text. This helps give credence to John’s testimony, as he would have otherwise been alone when he received the revelation.

Location and Occasion

The book of Revelation is a very long epistle written to seven churches on or near the western coast of Asia Minor, what we know today as western Turkey. Because it was so long and John needed to get the word out quickly “because the time is near,” verse 3 has the instruction that the entire book be read out loud to the seven churches rather than have separate copies made and delivered to each of the churches. The order of the churches in vs. 10 (and their corresponding letters in chapters 2–3) would have been a typical circuit for anyone who traveled regularly through that region. What probably happened is once the book was read at Ephesus, someone would have travelled to Smyrna to pass it off to the next church, and so on.

What we don’t seem to know, at least, no one in the several commentaries I reviewed knew, is why these seven churches. There were other churches nearby who had already had letters from Paul: Colossae was just a few miles to the east of Laodicea, and the region of Galatia was just east of there. A simple answer, and the one I’ll assume here, is that John functioned as some sort of overseer for these churches, and so he “stays in his lane” and focuses on those churches. With these cities being on an established circuit, we can make an educated guess that there may have been some strategic considerations as well for eventually distributing the message to the rest of the Mediterranean region and beyond. At least one commentator suggested this area could have had the highest concentration of Christians at the time.

Many commentators focus on the number of churches, seven, because that symbolizes completeness, and as such, each in their own way may represent established churches elsewhere in the world. But there are local details that only the believers in the respective churches could have related to, so that might lessen a broader appeal to other churches. At the very least, if other churches besides those mentioned received this letter, they surely would have been able to discern broader principles that applied to their situation, and the grand visions of Revelation in chapter 4 and beyond would have had universal significance to the church as it existed at the time. For now, though, we can set the question of “Why these seven churches” aside and still discern some meaningful truths from the passage.

The OT Connection

Many early– to mid–20^th-century versions of our English Bibles do not indicate that the book of Revelation has many, if any, direct quotations or allusions to the Old Testament. But as scholars and translators have studied the book in more detail, and the use of computers facilitated better text comparisons between the Old and New Testaments, they’ve come to discover the book’s extensive connections to the OT.

Verses 4 and 5 are at the heart of what I hope to communicate to you this morning. Not only do they speak to who Christ is, but to our relationship with Christ as well and how he views us in his eternal plan. After greeting the seven churches, Paul opens with a pretty standard greeting formula: “Grace and peace to you.” The word “grace” was rarely used in the OT, and when it was, it usually referred to adornment, graceful speech, or a graceful appearance. Only a couple uses of the word in the NIV could be considered to come close to the NT understanding of grace as a free gift from God, especially for salvation. “Peace” was the more common OT greeting, so John and the other epistle writers use this formula to tie together the new and old covenants when addressing a mixed audience. “Peace” is not just the absence of conflict in the OT context, but a sense of security and acceptance as well.

The next phrase, which is also repeated in vs. 8, tells us who the sources of grace and peace are: “The one who is, and who was, and who is to come” is, of course, God himself, the father. The phrase is a direct reference to the Greek translation of God’s divine name in Exodus 3:14, when he reveals it to Moses at the burning bush: “I am who I am,” or perhaps better “I will be who I will be” (Hebrew: אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה; [ehyeh asher ehyeh] Greek LXX: Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν [egō eimi ho ōn]). In Hebrew, we know that name to be Yahweh, which as a word, is nothing more than a glorified form of the “to be” verb in Hebrew. This refers to the timeless, eternal, self-sustaining nature of God. One other interesting fact about this description: The phrase “who is to come” sounds like it might be a future tense, right? But in Greek, it’s actually a present tense verb. Why is this little bit of grammar important? Because in Greek, the present tense usually implies an action is in process and is not a one-and-done event. God is saying that, even now, he is actively working on coming to us to redeem us once and for all and finally put an end to Satan’s power. We can always count on God’s presence and involvement in the affairs of our lives and in the world around us.

The next source for grace and peace is the “seven spirits before his throne.” This is a little trickier to discern, because John describes the seven spirits differently in each context he mentions them. In 3:1, when addressing the church of Sardis, Jesus says, “These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God….” In 4:5, John says the seven lamps blazing in front of the throne of God are the seven spirits of God. In 5:6, John says the “seven eyes” of the Lamb “are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.” At the very least, then, it would seem like these spirits represent a special group of divine beings, perhaps archangels, who have some authority to carry out God’s will on the earth, especially with respect to the judgment events later in the book. However, this may in fact be an expanded way of referring to the Holy Spirit, because then we would have an expression of the Trinity in vss. 4–5: Father, Spirit, Jesus.

If you’re following along in your Bibles, some of you may have a footnote with an alternate translation: “the seven-fold Spirit.” This may refer to a seven-fold description of the Holy Spirit in Isaiah 11:2 about the shoot that comes up from the stump of Jesse, and thus support the idea this is in fact a statement about the Trinity:

The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—

the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,

the Spirit of counsel and of might,

the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord

If this is the case, it would seem these seven spirits (or the seven-fold Spirit) may have a role to play in preparing and protecting believers in the tribulation that John will describe. However we interpret the phrase “seven spirits,” we at least can be assured that God is working in our best interests to bring us grace and peace.

Moving on, we see the final source of our grace and peace is Jesus himself. We’re reminded of who he is and what he’s done for us. He’s first called a “faithful witness” here, which brings us back to Isaiah again, 55:4:

See, I have made him a witness to the peoples,

a ruler and commander of the peoples.

He is the faithful witness because he did all that his father commanded him to, even accepting death on a cross for our sins. This is also why he’s called here “the firstborn from the dead,” because God raised him from the dead and proved once for all that death could in fact be defeated (Psalm 89:27; Colossians 1:18). It’s important here that John reminds his readers of this hope of the resurrection because of the intense suffering some of them may face based on the revelation John is proclaiming.

The final piece in the first part of vs. 5 here is that Jesus is “the ruler of the kings of the earth.” This again hearkens back to the last part of Isaiah 55:4 I read a moment ago. Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

In response to the grace and peace of the blessing from the Father, Holy Spirit, and Jesus, John returns thanks to Jesus and acknowledges what the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have done not just for him, but for all believers everywhere. First off, he loves us. I think we all know the passage from John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” He’s also “freed us from our sins by his blood.” The death of the perfect Lamb of God was powerful enough to cleanse us and make us holy in his sight. Finally, John mentions a promise that goes all the way back to their release from captivity in Egypt and before God gives Moses the Ten Commandments. Exodus 19:5–6 says:

Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, ⁶ you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

What a blessing to know that we have power, authority, and hope in our Savior to face whatever may come our way! And because of that, John can conclude that God deserves all glory and power for who he is and what he’s done for us.

Verse 7 isn’t so much a vision but a mash-up of several OT verses that confirm that God is indeed all powerful and worthy of all glory. Let’s hear it again before breaking it down:

“Look, he is coming with the clouds,”

and “every eye will see him,

even those who pierced him”;

and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”

So shall it be! Amen.

“He’s coming with the clouds” is a direct quote from Daniel’s vision in 7:13. The gospels use this description of Christ’s return as well. The next few lines about being pierced and the people mourning come straight from Zechariah 12:10. The Jews always recognized these two passages as Messianic from the time they were published after the exile. John is confirming that here.

Verse 8 closes out this passage with God himself saying he is the Alpha and Omega. This also hearkens back to a passage in Isaiah 41:4:

4 Who has done this and carried it through,

calling forth the generations from the beginning?

I, the Lord—with the first of them

and with the last—I am he.”

Long before this, Jewish writers were referring to God as the ‘’Aleph and Tau,’ the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Some Jewish writers went even further and added the middle letter of the Hebrew alphabet between the first and last, which made the Hebrew word ’emeth, which means “truth.” So God calling himself “Alpha and Omega” is nothing new to Jewish Christians who spoke Greek. A few verses later, in Revelation 1:17, Jesus calls himself “the First and the Last.” In Revelation 21:6, God again calls himself Alpha and Omega, only this time he also adds “the Beginning and the End.” In the final chapter, 22:13, we see Jesus taking on both those titles as well, only this time he adds in “the First and the Last” from 1:17. In other words, Jesus affirms that he is part of the Trinity with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God, not “a” god little g, but the one and only “God” big G.

Conclusion

Revelation can be a difficult book to navigate. It’s full of strange and sometimes bizarre images of multihorned beasts, horses of different colors, and terrible cosmic events. But even if you don’t understand all that, the important thing to understand is what we’ve talked about here this morning. Here’s what I hope you’ll take away from today’s message:

God is in control even in the most difficult times, and his presence is always with you.
God loves you and has freed you from your sins. With that kind of freedom, you can and will do great things for God’s kingdom.
No matter how bad things get around us, we have the absolute assurance that God and his church will win in the end. We don’t know how much of the bad stuff we’re going to have to go through, but we can be sure God will rescue us in the end and bring us safely home to his eternal kingdom.

Go in peace today with the assurance that your sins are forgiven, and that God is preparing a place for you.

^[1] Scripture quotations taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version^® NIV^®
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™
Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My opinions are my own.

Leave a Comment

March 13, 2022

Temptations Lose Their Power (Luke 4:1‒13)

Author’s Note: This message was preached at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, Nebraska, March 6, 2022. The text has been lightly edited with the addition of section headings. I was not recording audio files of my messages at that time.

I preached the message again on March 9, 2025. The new audio file is from that date.

It’s the oldest persistent and scariest challenge in the world, and one that very few have ever navigated with 100 percent success. Men and women who have done great things in their lives have lost it all because one time out of the hundreds or thousands of times they’ve dealt with this challenge, they failed horribly, miserably, and humiliatingly. Whether it was a moment of pride, lust, greed, or desperation, that one moment of failure was enough to erase and “cancel” all the good and great things someone ever accomplished.

The Roots of Temptation

By now, you’ve probably guessed what that oldest challenge is: temptation. We see it from the earliest chapters in the Bible, while Adam and Eve are still in a pristine paradise in the garden, clear through the Old Testament, and even into the New Testament story line. In Genesis 3, we see the primary elements of temptation in Eve’s encounter with the serpent: “the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom.”^[1] John confirms this definition in his first letter (1 John 2:16) in slightly different words: “For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.^[2]”

Examples of Temptation

Old Testament

We could, unfortunately of course, provide several other examples of temptation in both testaments, but I want to highlight a couple other ones to clarify what temptation is and is not. For example, later in Genesis, not once, not twice, but three times the patriarchs mislead the king of a foreign country about the nature of their respective relationships with their wives. Abraham does it twice, and Isaac once. These failures ostensibly came about because the men had some measure of fear of what these foreign kings might do, but that was no excuse in God’s eyes. And let’s not forget about Joseph when Pharaoh’s wife pursues him. He put his own life at risk by fleeing the scene of temptation.

Fast forwarding to the kingdom era, we of course have the story of David and Bathsheba, where David goes out on the rooftop of his palace and sees a beautiful woman bathing. Not only does he have her brought to the palace to take advantage of her, but when he realizes he got her pregnant, he tries to “frame” her husband for the pregnancy. Of course, this utterly fails, as Uriah has more integrity than David, and David has him put on the front lines of battle to a certain death. One moral failing leads to another, which is ultimately exposed by Nathan the prophet.

New Testament

One final example of temptation is that of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts, the couple who misrepresented the money they earned from a property sale and both wound up dead for lying to the church about it. They could have given whatever they wanted to and kept whatever they wanted to, but they tried to fool church and paid the ultimate price.

I believe each of these stories represent each of the three elements of temptation individually that we saw in Eve’s thinking and John’s epistle. But before we get too much further into this, it’s important that we look at the words the Bible uses for “temptation” so we can get a better understanding of its meaning and application.

Temptation and Testing: The Word Study

[Professor's Tip: Normally, I would do a word study in the original language, but since there are only two related Greek words (noun and verb) and one Hebrew word dedicated to the concept, a study of translation principles is more in order.]

Now even though I gave several examples of temptation from the Old Testament, the verb “tempt” (πειράζω peirazō) and its noun “temptation” (πειρασμός peirasmos) are rarely if ever found in English translations of the OT. Neither the New International Version nor the English Standard Version nor the New Revised Standard Version have those English words at all in the OT. The New King James Version translates the Hebrew word (נסה nāsā^h) as “tempt” or “tempted” in four verses, three of which are related to Jesus’s responses to the devil in the temptation narrative we’ll look at in a moment. The reason I bring this up is because by comparing the NKJV with the other three translations I mentioned, we see that the other way the Hebrew (and in the NT, the Greek) words are translated: “test.”

The Difference Between “Test” and “Tempt”

So why do three of the versions I mentioned use “test” instead of “temptation” for the same Greek or Hebrew word? Well, as I tell my students when they ask me questions like that, the answer is “context, context, context.” If you follow the use of the words in their respective story settings, you find that “testing” has to do with the relationship between God and humans. The general thrust of the verses in question goes one of three ways: either God is testing his people to see how they respond, or the people are testing God by NOT doing what he’s commanded them to do, or one person is testing another’s character. And consistent with the concept of testing, sometimes there’s a judgment or “grade” on how we responded to the test.

“Temptation” is a subset of testing. That is, all temptations are tests, but not all tests are temptations. The word “temptation” is used by these English translation committees to indicate a situation in which some personified evil power or influence is at work. James 1:13–15 clarifies this for us:

13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.^[3]

Our own modern English dictionaries seem to confirm this distinction as well. Merriam-Webster says “tempt” means “to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain,” “to induce to do something,” or its synonym “provoke.”^[4] However, the word gurus at Merriam-Webster tell us that the use of the word “tempt” to mean “to make trial of” or to “test” (i.e., how the word is used in the King James Version) is now obsolete.

So, to sum up where we’re at: testing happens between God and man or from man to man. Temptation happens when an evil one or evil desire holds our attention. I haven’t forgotten about my sermon title, “Temptations Lose Their Power”; we’ll get to that soon. And no, there will NOT be a quiz afterwards!

OT Background for Jesus’s Temptation Narrative

Let’s get back to Scripture, then, and look at the passages that set us up for passage about Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness.

In Exodus 17, not long after the Jews had crossed the Red Sea on dry land, one of many grumbling episodes broke out against Moses. This is the first time we see the Hebrew word for “test” in the OT, so it’s worth taking a quick look at the text:

The whole Israelite community set out from the Desert of Sin, traveling from place to place as the Lord commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink. ² So they quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water to drink.”

Moses replied, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the Lord to the test?”

³ But the people were thirsty for water there, and they grumbled against Moses. They said, “Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to make us and our children and livestock die of thirst?”

⁴ Then Moses cried out to the Lord, “What am I to do with these people? They are almost ready to stone me.”

⁵ The Lord answered Moses, “Go out in front of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. ⁶ I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel. ⁷ And he called the place Massah and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the Lord saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”^[5]

Notice here that Moses, at least, passes the test. He’s commanded to strike the rock, and indeed he does. The people, however, not so much. Now if you’re scratching your head and saying, “Wait a minute, I thought Moses got in trouble for that one,” you might be thinking of the similar account toward the end of the wilderness wanderings in the book of Numbers, where Moses was commanded to SPEAK to the rock, but STRUCK it twice instead, and consequently lost his free pass to the Promised Land. Moses failed that one. So, let’s ask an obvious question at this point: If you’re stuck in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights, which of these two stories of a Bible hero would you want on your mind to survive your time of testing?

Well, Deuteronomy 6 answers that question for us, and these verses are the sources for two of Jesus’s three responses in the wilderness to the Devil”

¹³Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. ¹⁴Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; ¹⁵for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. ¹⁶Do not put the Lord your God to the test as you did at Massah.^[6]

The Temptation Narrative

And so finally, we come to the story today of Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness.

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, ²where for forty days he was tempted (πειράζω peirazō) by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.

³The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”

⁴Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’”

⁵The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. ⁶And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. ⁷If you worship me, it will all be yours.”

⁸Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

⁹The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. ¹⁰For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; ¹¹they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

¹²Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

¹³When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time.^[7]
Luke 4:1‒13

Now we can make an educated guess as to why the devil tried to pull this little stunt here of tempting God’s son. The devil knew Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and he couldn’t get to him on the spiritual side. The devil targeted Jesus’s human side with the three elements of temptation we talked about in the beginning: the lust of the flesh (turning stones into bread to assuage his hunger, a clear abuse of power to serve himself only); the lust of the eyes (the devil showing Jesus all the kingdoms and offering him to rule it all if he worshiped the devil, Jesus knew who the true ruler was and who deserved his worship); and the boastful pride of life (demonstrating superhuman strength and feats, again an abuse of power to serve himself and draw attention away from his teaching and example). If the devil could get Jesus to bite on just one of these, it would be all over for the rest of us.

How Temptations Lose Their Power

Prayer

One of the main reasons we have this story is to demonstrate what Hebrews 4:15 says: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”^[8] And why did he care enough to do that? The very next verse gives us the answer, and one of the biblical steps we can take to cause temptations to lose their power. “Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”^[9]

For any test, trial, or temptation we face, we can always turn to God in prayer. Joseph, even though he was imprisoned after fleeing Potiphar’s wife, stayed connected with God. He would eventually rise to power in Egypt because he maintained his integrity and continued to do the will of God. And we’re not alone in these times either. Hebrews 12 says we’re surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Not only can we seek mercy and grace from Christ at the throne of God, but we can also seek it from the body of Christ here in our own communities. Some churches have a Celebrate Recovery program that helps people deal with addictions. Other churches sponsor Grief Care and Divorce Care groups to help people in those situations.

Living in the Will of God

This brings us to another strategy for cutting off the impact of temptation in our lives. Right after John gives his description of temptation I mentioned earlier, he says this: “The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.”^[10] David, when he had a chance to kill King Saul in a cave, refused to lay a hand on God’s anointed. It must have been a huge temptation for him to have killed Saul then and there and complete his divinely appointed takeover of the kingdom, but David waited on God’s timing. Another episode where David succeeded was when he was bringing the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem. When he realized he wasn’t transporting it according to God’s instructions, and Uzzah died when touched the Ark to steady it on the cart, David left it at the home of Obed-Edom to keep it safe there until he could move it properly. He didn’t try to make excuses for doing it the wrong way, he just stopped doing it the wrong way.[11]

(Memorizing and) Quoting God’s Word

In addition to prayer and doing God’s will, Jesus shows us yet another way to address temptation and weaken its power in our lives: citing the word of God. The fact that Jesus cites two of his three verses from Deuteronomy 6 gives us some insight as to what Jesus had been thinking about and meditating on while he was in the wilderness. He was obviously thinking about how Moses had led a stiff-necked people through the wilderness for 40 years when he only had to survive it 40 days. He remembered Moses’s success at Massah as we read above from Exodus 17. We can always look to the Scriptures for help facing temptation. It’s good to memorize Scripture as well, so you can have it at the ready, especially when temptation may come at you out of nowhere. Study God’s word. Learn from the mistakes and successes of the heroes of faith. Make a plan.

A Personal Testimony

When I was a young Christian in high school, I was all too aware of what my hormones were doing to me. When I read the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, I embraced that as my power and plan to avoid that kind of temptation. Without going into any detail, twice I found myself in very similar situations to Joseph where I was outright given an opportunity I was not seeking to make the wrong decision with people I knew would be bad influences on me, and I followed Joseph’s plan as a young man. Run away! I am certain that those two events are watershed moments in my faith journey. I’d hate to think where I’d be today had I not made the right decisions in those early days of my faith.

The Promise of God

This brings me to my final Scripture, 1 Corinthians 10:13. I’m sure many of you are familiar with it: “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”^[12] Trust in God, his word, and the power of the Holy Spirit working in your lives to watch over you. The devil tried to convince Jesus he could jump off the top of the temple without being harmed by quoting Psalm 91:12. But that verse was never intended for us to do things to provoke God’s protection. That promise is there for us when we find ourselves in a place we were powerless to avoid. God will make a way to cause temptations to lose their power, and that’s one way he shows his great love for us.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My opinions are my own.

^[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] Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1996. In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

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

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

^[7] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[8] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[9] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[10] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[11] 2 Samuel 6

^[12] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Comments (1)

February 20, 2022

Getting Naked for Jesus: A Lesson on Loving Your Enemy (Luke 6:27–38; par. Matthew 5:39–42)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Courage,Greek,Luke Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Prayer,Spiritual Warfare,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 8:20 pm
Tags: Going the extra mile, Loving your enemy, Turning the other cheek

Sermon preached February 20, 2022, at Mount View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, NE. The sermon text has been mildly edited and reformatted for publication.

Scripture quotations taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version® NIV®
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™
Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

I want to acknowledge the contribution of Walter Wink’s Engaging the Powers, Chapter 9, “Jesus’ Third Way: Nonviolent Engagement” for his exegesis of the cheek slapping, garment forfeiting, and extra mile passages. Over the years, I have found his “Powers” series extremely helpful in understanding the concept of spiritual warfare.

Flipping the Script on the Good Samaritan Parable

I think most of us here know what the two greatest commandments are: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” And most of us know that when someone asked Jesus who his neighbor was, Jesus, in typical fashion, answered with a parable instead of a direct answer. That parable, of course, is the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Just to set the stage, here, I’ll recap the parable: A man was robbed, beaten, and left for dead on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. A priest and temple servant, that is, a Levite, two people who we’d think are most in tune with worshiping God, walk right by the man and offer him no help. Then a Samaritan, someone despised to no end by the Jews and outside of most Jewish “in-groups,” comes along and renders care to the man and gets him to a place of safety. When Jesus asked the Jewish law expert who was a neighbor to the man, the expert couldn’t even bring himself to say “Samaritan.” He answered, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Now as we come to today’s passage in Luke 6:27 and following, let’s take a different track on the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Instead of asking “Who was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” at the end of the story, how would we answer if Jesus had asked, “Who is the enemy of this man?”

Before we answer that question specifically about the Parable, or even about our own lives, we can make a broader statement about who the enemies of the Jews were generally, as that is important to set the context for Luke 6:27.

Who Is My Enemy?

In the first place, we can identify the obvious political enemy for the Jews: The Roman Empire. They were efficient and brutal in executing judgment against those who wouldn’t toe the line. They collected taxes and even recruited some Jews to betray their people and collect the taxes for them. This would certainly be at the forefront of every Jew’s thinking, which is why they had the expectation at the time that the Messiah would be a military leader who would free them from Roman bondage. But Jesus wasn’t just concerned about Rome.

We can look at the Beatitudes as well. Have you ever noticed that the first chapter of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), which includes the Beatitudes, has as much to do with our relationships with each other as it does with our relationship to God? Just listen to a few passages from that chapter:

^{Matthew 5:11}Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. ^[1]

^{Matthew 5:22}But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.^[2]

^{Matthew 5:25}Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court.^[3]

^{Matthew 5:43‒44}You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.^[4]
Matthew 5:11, 22, 25, 43‒44

They could have enemies within their own in-group, never mind the Romans. And those kinds of enemies can be the most painful to deal with at times. So with these concepts of who the Jews’ enemies were at the time, let’s turn to our central passage this morning, Luke 6:27‒36.

²⁷“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. ²⁹If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. ³⁰Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. ³¹Do to others as you would have them do to you.

³²“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. ³³And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. ³⁴And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. ³⁵But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. ³⁶Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.^[5]
Luke 6:27‒36

What Does “Loving Your Enemy” Look Like?

One big question we need to ask ourselves right off the bat is, if loving your neighbor looks like what the Samaritan did for the victim on the side of the road, what does loving your enemy look like if they’re the ones that put you on the side of the road? What is that kind of love in action? What does Jesus think will happen to the enemy, or to us, if we “love” them back?

Luke here takes the other side of the beatitude we looked at earlier. If you’re blessed when you’re persecuted, turn around and bless the persecutor. Again, what does that look like? Is just a matter of saying a few kind words or praying a quick prayer over the persecutor? Or does Jesus have something a little more transformative in mind here?

In Matthew’s parallel account of this in the Sermon on the Mount, he uses this teaching as a contrast to the Lex Talionis, the “eye-for-an-eye” principle of legal punishment in the Old Testament. So it would seem here that Jesus has in mind with this teaching the cultural and legal ramifications of our actions. There are much bigger principles at work here than just the day-to-day challenges we face, like getting cut off in traffic, someone putting a ding in your car door, or a neighbor not picking up after their dog has graced your yard.

Resistance Is Unfruitful

In Matthew’s version, he records Jesus saying: “Do not resist an evil person.” That word “resist” (ἀνθίστημι anthistēmi) is the same word used in Ephesians 6:13 about “standing your ground” or “standing firm.” The word is used quite often in passages about military battles, so it has the implication of not just staying put, but actively and at times violently resisting the enemy so they cannot push you back or overcome you. When Jesus says “do not resist,” then, he’s talking about not resisting violently, about not responding in kind.

What he’s NOT saying, however, and this is important to understand the passage, is let yourself get trampled over, and the examples that follow help us understand just how to apply this type of “love.” It also shows how this type of “love” he wants us to demonstrate can be the seed to transform a situation and possibly bring some redemption.

Slapping for Shame

The first example about loving your enemy, getting slapped on the cheek, has been sorely misunderstood through most of Church history, primarily because we have failed to recognize the historical context in which it is set. Matthew’s version is a little more specific than Luke’s version in that Matthew specifies the right cheek. He has a couple reasons for doing that. The first is that, when a superior wanted to shame or reprimand a subordinate, a soldier wanted to shame a subject, husband wanted to shame his wife, or a parent their child, the custom in that day was to use a backhand slap to the cheek. The other background piece here is that, for the Jews, using the left hand was taboo because it was used for “unclean” tasks. So the backhand slap always had to be done with the right hand, and the right cheek was the easiest target for that.

So what happens when you “turn the other cheek”? It exposes the left cheek for a backhand slap. But the taboo against using the left hand was so strong, no one would do that, and trying to do a backhand slap with your right on someone’s left cheek is pretty awkward. [Author’s note: technically, a backhand stroke starts on the opposite side of the body from the hand used; trying slap the left cheek with the back of the right hand would essentially require you to come straight on the person’s face, like a punch. It wouldn’t cross the body, and it would look ridiculous to an observer.] In other words, turning the other cheek is a sort of passive challenge to the abuser to subsequently either shame themselves by using a left-hand slap or losing the power dynamic by punching the person outright. In a culture that valued honor and scorned shame so highly, most people would think twice about bringing shame upon themselves or degrading their position of power or authority.

“But,” you may ask, “why not just punch someone with your fist?” Well, this is the final piece of the cultural puzzle: if you punched someone with your fist, as in a regular fist fight, that meant you considered the person you hit your equal in that culture. There would be no one-way expression of shame or insult. You would shame yourself by resorting to violating cultural norms with what would be considered violence.

So the popular and long-standing Christian misreading of this as letting yourself get beat up when someone slaps you has no basis in historical reality when it comes to what Jesus intended to teach here. The point of turning the other cheek, then, is not to passively get pummeled, but to deny or make it more difficult for the oppressor to continue to shame you. I mean, how is it “loving your enemy” to submit to a beating? This is one way, then, to “love your enemy.” The temptation for us is to respond to such shaming, which is a form of violence, with violence of our own, but this is not what Jesus wants for us, as he said in Matthew. Turning the other cheek is a way to fight back against the culture of shaming without resorting to violence. It is love for your enemy because it also forces them to make the choice to continue to shame by putting their own honor and shame on the line.

Getting Naked for Jesus

Let’s take a look at the next example of “loving your enemy,” giving up your underwear. Yes, you heard that correctly, folks. Jesus says to give up your underwear if someone takes your outer garment. The average Jewish person had a simple wardrobe: an undergarment, which in Greek was called a χιτών (chitōn), and an outer garment called a ἱμάτιον (himation). In the Old Testament, if you needed to borrow money from someone, you might be asked to give the lender your outer garment as a pledge to repay your loan. However, since many Jews only had one outer garment (there were no Duluth Trading Company or JC Penney stores), Jewish law said the lender must return the outer garment to the borrower each night so they could use it to keep warm while sleeping.

In some cases, a lender may get a little too aggressive in trying to secure a pledge for a loan. They would take a poor borrower to court in an attempt to secure the borrower’s outer garment indefinitely, without returning it to the borrower each night. This was not only a violation of basic human rights for the Jews, but an insult to Jewish law and tradition. Unlike the slap in the face, this wasn’t so much about shaming the individual as it was taking a cruel action to force the borrower’s hand to pay back the loan.

But shame does play a part in Jesus’s teaching about how to respond to such a tactic. Jesus teaches that the person who is taken to court for their outer garment should just go the whole nine yards and hand over their undergarment as well, leaving them essentially naked. But as we see in the story of Noah and his sons after the flood, the primary shame of nakedness is not for the one who walks around naked, but on those who view or even mock the naked person. So once again, instead of taking a more violent response toward the aggressor, Jesus tells his listeners to essentially put the plaintiffs and the judge in a position of shame by walking out of the court room naked!

Jesus’s point here, then, is that the loving thing to do is shame the oppressors and make them think twice about using the courts to compel violations of Jewish law and tradition. Maybe, just maybe, the oppressors would think twice next time about permanently withholding someone’s outer garment.

Going the Extra Mile, Literally

Matthew adds one more example of how to love your enemies: going the extra mile. Roman law allowed a soldier to compel (ἀγγαρεύω angareuō) a subject to carry his pack one mile. Jesus’s answer to this is for the person to go another mile with the pack. Here’s why: Romans seem to have strictly enforced this compelled service rule so they wouldn’t incur the wrath of the ruled, so going the extra mile would actually put the Roman soldier in danger of being punished for violating Roman law. The soldier may also take it as an insult, that the Jew perhaps thought the soldier hadn’t regained enough strength to resume carrying the pack. Again, this is a nonviolent way of making the oppressor, the power holder, think twice about pressing someone into service.

So to summarize these three examples that Jesus gives, loving your enemy would seem to be a little like tough love. Again, Jesus was not in favor of a violent retaliation against Romans or of a violent response to those who do us harm. He wants a response from us that will bring positive transformation to both parties.

Our Response

Verses 32–34 confirm that loving and being kind and compassionate to those in our in-group is no big deal. God expects that, and even sinners do the same for each other. In vs. 35, Jesus takes loving your enemy beyond the tough love of the first three examples. “Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.^[6]” Take the lead; take the initiative; and take the moral high ground when it comes to your enemies. Verse 35 goes on to say that even God is kind to the ungrateful and wicked, so we should mirror that kindness.

Now earlier, I asked the alternate question about the Parable of the Good Samaritan: “Who was the enemy of the man beaten and left on the roadside?” The Samaritan was a cultural enemy of the Jews, but he didn’t act like an enemy to the man in need. Certainly we can say the robbers were his enemies. But what about the priest and the Levite? With all their supposed piety, is it possible they could be categorized as enemies as well?

Are YOU Someone’s Enemy?

Now I know some of you have probably never heard these Scriptures explained in this way before. It might be a lot to process about what it means to love your enemy. But let’s flip the script one more time. Who in your life or your circle of influence might consider you an enemy? Hmm? I don’t know about you, but when it occurred to me during my sermon prep this week that I needed to ask that question of myself, it made me squirm a little bit. Now it’s possible no one considers us an enemy, I’ll grant that. But many of us have experienced the heartache of a broken relationship, failed expectations from those we love, or maybe even not living up to our own expectations. Jesus takes us to the highest level of love in vv. 37-38:

³⁷“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. ³⁸Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”^[7]
Luke 6:37‒38

In Matthew 5 in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives us the solution for this:

²³“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, ²⁴leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. ^[8]
Matthew 5:23‒24

If you’re struggling with loving your enemy, I would encourage you to find a good support group at a local church who can help you through any struggles you might have with that. Jesus calls us to love our neighbors AND our enemies as ourselves. There is no higher calling than this.

I own my opinions and my agreement with Walter Wink’s exegesis of these passages.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

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

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

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

^[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.

^[7] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[8] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Comments (1)

November 24, 2021

The Intersection of Biblical Faith With Political Action: Thoughts on How to Make a Religious Exemption Request

Filed under: 1 Peter,Government,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 6:17 am
Tags: biblical freedom, COVID, intersection of faith with constitution, my body my choice

Abstract: My Christian faith will not allow me to bend the knee to an unjust mandate that violates the dignity of human beings by denying them free will when it comes to their own persons and classifies those who refuse the vaccine specifically or the mandate generally because it effectively declares such people as “disabled” according to the law of the land.

NOTE: I am not a lawyer, I don’t play one on TV, and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. I consider myself a well-educated person with experience in theology and regulatory analysis. The following is an attempt to bring those two worlds together to demonstrate the complexity surrounding opposing the government overreach of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. I’m using the plain language of the Constitution, fully realizing that the Bill of Rights has been watered down significantly in its 230-year history (btw, 12/15/2021 is the 230th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights). I think it’s time we start reclaiming the plain language of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as intended by our founding fathers.

This article is copublished on my http://sustainableamericablog.wordpress.com under the title “Some Thoughts on How to Oppose the Vaccine Mandate.”

THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR FREEDOM OF CHOICE OVER ONE’S BODY

One of the key verses on human freedom in the Scriptures is 1 Corinthians 7:21–24:

²¹ Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. ²² For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. ²³ You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. ²⁴ Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

The idea here is that Christianity in its early days understood that slavery was part of the human condition, but that it was not the ideal situation for humanity. Christianity has a long tradition of fighting against slavery and promoting free will (e.g., Augustine’s On Grace and Free Will), so when people began to migrate from Europe, often from places where they did not have religious freedom, the founding fathers incorporated freedom of religious expression into the constitution. Christians eventually led the effort to overturn slavery in the United States by siding with the North and offering refuge for slaves that escaped from the South.

So the founding principle of freedom directly derives from the biblical and theological concept of free will. We see these embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well, which I will address shortly.

The ministry of Jesus Christ is founded in part on the words of the prophet Isaiah in 61:1–2a (which Luke records Jesus reciting in his gospel, 4:18-19):

The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
Because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good new to the poor.

He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,

To proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

As Christians, we carry on the ministry of Jesus to “proclaim freedom for the captives.” The “captives,” in this case, are those who are unjustly being denied work because for whatever reason, they do not want to heed a government mandate. I will demonstrate later that, based on the definitions in the U.S. Code, every vaccine mandate (Federal Employee, Federal Contractor, and OSHA) creates a new class of disability that includes the unvaccinated and those who refuse to heed the unconstitutional demand for their protected, private health papers. In other words, the mandate attacks the dignity of those who want to work but are prohibited from doing so. (On the dignity of work, see such passages as Ecclesiastes 2:24–26, 1 Thessalonians 5:14, and 2 Thessalonians 3:6–13.)

Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Freedom is not just a spiritual concept in the Christian faith. In the 1 Corinthians passage above, we are encouraged not only to obtain our freedom, but to maintain it and not go back into slavery. Christ’s ministry helps his followers do that through the example of his compassion to the lost and his confrontation of corrupt leadership. In this Galatians passage, we’re told to “stand firm,” which coincides with Paul’s exhortation in the final chapter of Ephesians, where he tells Christ-followers to “stand firm” against everyone and everything that would try to destroy our freedom and faith in Christ and draw us back into slavery again.

Peter emphasizes the intersectionality of faith and politics:

1 Peter 2:16–17: Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

It is important to recognize that the supreme power of the day was the emperor. He had no one to answer to, and he ruled absolutely; the emperor was the highest law in the land. In the American system, absolute power does not reside with the president, either branch of congress, the courts, or any executive departments, but in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land and the standard against which all other laws are judged.

The other aspect of Peter’s statement here is that he says believers should live as God’s slaves. This means, for our own bodies, that we live for God, and we belong to God. We do NOT belong to the State. God created mankind; the State did not. God breathed life into the human body; the State did not. God sustains his creation; the State does not. We are responsible for our eternal fate before God; the State has no legitimate power to affect or effect our relationship with God. So this is just one reason why a Christ follower should not be subject to a mandate regarding our own bodies: we have personal autonomy that the State should not and has no right to violate (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons…shall not be violated”; U.S. Constitution, 4^th Amendment).

This must be kept in mind when we come to Paul’s discussion of the intersection of faith and politics in Romans 13:1–7. In his day, all authorities were human beings. In our day, as I said above, the ultimate “governing authority” is the U.S. Constitution.

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. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 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. 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. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 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.

At first one may think that opposing a mandate would be akin to not submitting to government authorities, but a problem arises when government dictates contradict established law or the Constitutional authority that supports the law. It is at that point that a person of faith is put in a position of which law to obey. As I’ve stated above, the U.S. Constitution is the highest governing authority in the land, so as both a Christian and American, my highest political allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution; not to a person or political leader, but to the principles embodied in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and other amendments. I should add that I believe the Constitution was written by men who had a profound understanding of the relationship between the free expression of religion (one of the reasons the original pilgrims came to the North American continent) and political freedom. I believe that the Constitution had its origin, in part at least, in mind of God as revealed to the founding fathers.

So when I look at political actors, I must always turn to the Constitution to judge the actions of those who claim and have taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce it. If I see that such actors are rebelling against the authority of the Constitution, they are rebelling against what God has instituted, according to the Romans passage above, and I owe them no allegiance to the extent they are demanding behaviors and policies that violate the plain language of the Constitution.

The preceding line of reasoning leads to the most salient point of all when it comes to the COVID vaccine mandate: I belong to God, not to the State, and the State has no power to compel me to any action that is not specifically outlined in the Constitution. The Bible supports paying taxes to the government, regardless of what we think of their politics, and I willingly do so. We have a Constitutional amendment that allows for that taxation as well, so I have no conflict with my Christian faith in that regard. In fact, it is in the context of people asking Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar that he makes the following statement, which is the most concise statement anyone could make for a religious exemption, as it perfectly resolves the tension between being a political subject and a subject in the kingdom of God:

Matthew 22:21b: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

The U.S. government prints money and puts their seal on it, therefore that money is “Caesar’s.” But as I said above, I belong to God, not to Caesar, not to the State, not to Joe Biden, not to Donald Trump, certainly not to Anthony Fauci, and not to any political leader. Nor do I belong to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is made for We the People; We the People were not made for the Constitution. I am God’s. The State doesn’t own me, so the State can’t impose a mandate on my body.

THE INTERSECTION OF MY FAITH WITH THE CONSTITUTION

The State has no legitimate power over my person. Here is where the intersection of my faith jibes with the 4^th Amendment in the Bill of Rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Almost every part of this amendment is violated by the vaccine mandate. Asking for protected, private health information is akin to an unreasonable search of my physical body.

The plain meaning of “probable cause” is that someone suspects a crime has been committed, and failing to be vaccinated, or failing to document your vaccination, is not a crime, but a condition of employment. Because no crimes have been committed, the searches for and seizures of protected, private health information are unreasonable.
My COVID vaccination card is a “paper” again not subject to an unreasonable search or seizure.
The statement “rights…shall not be violated” is absolute, save the qualification of “Warrants.”
Any “warrant” issued to try to seize one’s protected, private health information, especially in the form of a paper card or electronic image of such, must “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In other words, the government is not allowed to issue a general “warrant” that applies to all working citizens in the United States without “particular description.” Instead, to comply with the plain language of the Constitution, the government must issue separate warrants for each individual with the particular language of each person’s name, address, and information sought. That’s a lot of warrants! The purpose of such “particular” warrants would be to allow individuals to protest the terms of the search and seizure if they so desire.

Not only does my faith intersect with the 4^th Amendment, but it also intersects with the 5^th Amendment as well:

No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

My protected, private health information is my property, and I am allowed the right to keep that property in the absence of any due process. The government has the burden of proof to deprive me of such, and I have an individual right to challenge such attempted deprivation. Additionally, since the government claims that they need my protected, private health information as a matter of public health, they are taking my private property for public use and not compensating me justly.

And if violating two amendments of the Bill of Rights isn’t enough, my faith intersects with the 8^th Amendment as well, as I desire to protect the free citizens of the United States from the oppression of “excessive fines imposed” and “cruel and unusual punishment” for failure to heed the mandate. The proposed $14,000 per infraction fine is excessive. And it is cruel and unusual punishment to fire workers based on a medical condition. If it is illegal for an insurance company to deny someone health insurance coverage based on a preexisting condition, then it is illegal to deny someone a job based on their health or vaccination status. This is nothing short of tyranny.

Somebody must stand up to this abuse of power by the government. People are getting tired of it. Not only is the mandate unconstitutional, but it is overreach as well, because the 10^th Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

HOW THE VACCINE MANDATE TRASHES THE DIGNITY OF HUMANITY

The Americans With Disabilities Act (42 USC 12102) defines disability in this way:

(1) Disability

The term “disability” means, with respect to an individual-

a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
a record of such an impairment; or
being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).

(2) Major life activities

In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

Vaccine hesitancy is a documented mental health issue and has been since the advent of vaccines. The Diagnostic & Statistics Manual, 5^th Edition (DSM-V) lists blood-injection-injury on its specific phobia scale.[1] The etiology of vaccine hesitancy is highly complex and not always based on irrationality. Many have thoughtfully considered whether they should subject themselves or their children to some or all vaccines. Here is how one article from 2013 describes the decision-making process on vaccines:

Many interventions are designed with the assumption that resistance to vaccination can be countered by supplying probabilistic information about vaccine risks and benefits. From this perspective, individuals who have concerns or doubts regarding vaccination are often assumed to be irrational, emotional, ill-informed, or to be manipulated by anti-vaccination groups….individual decision-making about vaccination is influenced by many different factors, including the fact that some of those who have doubts and concerns about vaccine safety use an entirely different decision-making model or subscribe to a different set of beliefs about health and illness. Supplying additional probabilistic information may not adequately address individual concerns.[2]

In the face of such a complex decision-making process, especially in a society that, at least on parchment, supports freedom of speech and thought along with personal liberty, it is nothing short of an insult to limit the vaccine hesitant to simplistic, single-track paths toward seeking exemptions. Exemption requests are allowed for two basic reasons: Medical or Ethical/Religious. Why is there not an exemption path for well-informed people, especially for those who work in the field of pharmaceuticals and the regulations surrounding them, to proffer their own reasoned arguments against submitting to a mandate for experimental vaccines that have not yet completed their full clinical trials and for which we have little public data or reporting (perhaps by design?) on any adverse effects. There have been enough media reports about potential vaccine-related health issues and even fatalities to raise significant concerns in the minds of some.

As such then, a mandate is violation of the freedom and personal autonomy I have defended and explained earlier in this essay. A general, universal mandate with little concern for people’s hesitancy to comply (whether it be with the imposition of the mandate apart from any hesitancy or taking the vaccine itself) degrades the individual freedoms we as Americans should be able to enjoy. It is a blow to our dignity and our freedom. At some point, and I think we are getting very near that point in America based on what is going on in Europe, the attacks on our freedom will awaken the sleeping giant of freedom fighters everywhere. Add to that an extremely low case-fatality rate for COVID-19, much lower than smoking-related deaths, and it should be easy to see why some suspect the government of hypocrisy or selective targeting with these mandates.

To get back to the Americans With Disabilities Act, then, vaccine hesitancy, regardless of whether it is fueled by irrational or rational thought, should be considered an “impairment” for purposes of the law in that a failure to be vaccinated (or rather the reluctance to turn over private health information to document vaccination) severely limits the major life activity of working. It should NOT be a basis for discrimination in the workplace at any level, whether a Federal or State employee, Federal or State contractor, or most of the rest of the working population subject to the overreaching OSHA rule. The mandate effectively creates a new class of disability, which strikes at the dignity of those who have this impairment, something the Americans With Disabilities Act was designed to counter.

It is also clear to me that the COVID-19 vaccines are proving to be ineffective. We have had more COVID-19 deaths in 2021 since the vaccine was approved (and with a significant portion of the public having both initial shots) than in 2020 before the vaccine. None of this is helped by such things as Dr. Fauci’s cacophany of conflicting comments for the past two years, the broken promise of the current president who at first said there would be no mandate, and the other failures in his administration that have driven his approval rating and American’s confidence in him into the toilet—it’s no wonder people don’t trust the mandate.

The mandate in the current climate has the appearance of an authoritarian move by a desperate man to try to salvage some semblance of control amidst the utter chaos of his administration. The mandate shows ZERO respect for the liberties and freedoms we as Americans should be enjoying. As a Christian, I feel it is my duty to speak up for these freedoms and liberties as I described above and protect the dignity of my fellow man. I respectfully submit my request to be exempted from the mandate to turn over my protected, private health information to the government.

I will make this offer, however: I am not opposed to the vaccine, only to the mandate. I am willing to sign an affidavit under penalty of termination that I have received two shots of the Pfizer vaccine, but I am not willing to turn over any official records of my health history to or for a government that has shown no respect for my personal freedom and has trampled on the dignity of the free and the brave.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My opinions are my own.

[1] Freeman D et al (2021). Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Psychological Medicine 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721002609 Accessed 11/23/21

[2] Dubé, E., Laberge, C., Guay, M., Bramadat, P., Roy, R., & Bettinger, J. (2013). Vaccine hesitancy: an overview. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 9(8), 1763–1773. https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24657 Accessed 11/23/21

Leave a Comment

August 24, 2019

The Lord’s Prayer: Deliver Us From the Evil One (Matthew 6:9–13)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ephesians,Evil,Faith, Faithfulness,forgiveness,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,Prayer,Providence,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 2:19 pm
Tags: deliver us from evil, Ephesians 6:13, Matthew 6:9–13, Philippians 3:20

Nothing is perhaps more common among the diverse branches of Christianity as the Lord’s Prayer. Aside from the occasional hesitation in the public setting about whether the church that’s reciting it says “trespasses” or “debts,” the basic form of the prayer is well established. Jesus implies in the text leading into Matthew 6:9–13 that it is a model prayer, not something intended to be formulaic or ritualistic (the surrounding context makes that crystal clear!), but rather a pattern for how we approach God the Father in prayer.

Many have proposed legitimate ways of outlining or summarizing the prayer, so my own comments are not intended to suggest those other ways are any less valid than what I am proposing here. We all have our own experiences and filters through which we come to the Father, and he really doesn’t care what, if any pattern we use. He just wants us to come and talk to him. But being a preacher, and an old-school one at that, I thought an alliterative outline would be good to organize my thoughts for my sermon on the passage this past Sunday.

Overview

Praise: Jesus gives praise to the Father in vv. 9–10 for who he is and what he is doing.

Provision: Jesus asks that God provides with the basic necessities of life, represented by bread.

Pardon: Jesus exhorts us to ask the Father’s forgiveness for our sins even as we (can and should) forgive those who sin against us.

Protection: Jesus asks God not only to keep us away from temptation, but also to deliver us from the evil one (or if you’re old school, from evil).

Praise

Verses 9–10 are structured as an inclusio, a literary technique that begins and ends a section with the same word or concept. It’s easy to see in English that the repeated word is “heaven.” The concept (“kingdom”) is repeated in the middle of the three praiseworthy items between the opening and closing lines of the inclusio. How can we be sure of this? In the opening line, “heaven” is actually plural: literally, “Our Father who is in the heavens.” In Matthew’s 32 exclusive uses of the phrase “kingdom of heaven,” “heaven” is always plural.

The fact that “heaven” is plural also calls to mind Ephesians, where five times Paul refers to the “heavenly realms” (a different Greek word formed from the root word for “heaven”) in reference to our proximity to Christ. In Ephesians, we see that we are with Christ in the heavenly realms. Jesus as much as acknowledges that in the closing line of the inclusio: “on earth as it is in heaven.” Actually, the word order in Greek for that phrase is transposed: “as in heaven [singular], so on earth.”

Another interesting tidbit about this section is that the three praise items are all written with third person imperative verbs. English doesn’t have a third person imperative, so we usually translate it something like “Let your name be holy; let your kingdom come; let your will be done.” Those three items are something we can’t command God to do; that totally comes from him, so the standard second person imperative in English wouldn’t do. We’re asking God to will and continue to will those things to be or become true.

Now before moving on to the other three points, I think the use of “heaven” as the key word in the inclusio is no accident. Not only does “kingdom of heaven” always use the plural form of “heaven,” but all references to the “Father…in heaven” also use the plural form. When “heaven” and “earth” are used together in the same phrase, “heaven” is often singular. I think we can look to Paul’s epistles to see how we’re to understand the reference to heaven. Philippians 3:20 says, “Our citizenship is in heaven.” Five times in Ephesians, Paul mentions our relationship to Christ “in the heavenly realms.” I’d never really heard this aspect of the Lord’s Prayer emphasized before, but I believe Jesus is emphasizing the dual citizenship of his followers. Just as we see God acting in heaven, we should work in concert to make it happen on earth. If God’s name is to be considered holy, we should be careful to live in such a way that those on earth can clearly see that. If God’s kingdom is to come, we should be working to make sure it is advancing here on earth. In fact, the final five lines of the prayer go back and forth between God’s work in heaven and his (and our) work on earth. Let’s look at those now.

Provision

“Give us today our daily bread” is a typical second person imperative that we might expect. It’s a simple request of God that he provide our daily, basic needs—not just food, but whatever we need to get through each and every day. It’s focused on our life here on earth, with God acting from heaven to move all the pieces in place for us. And because it’s “daily” bread, Jesus is saying that we should come to God each and every day, not just once in a while.

Asking for God to provide our daily bread does not absolve us from the responsibility to work. If we’re able and have the opportunity, we can and should work for a living. Paul says in Thessalonians that the one who doesn’t work shouldn’t eat. In times we face need, then, we can lean a bit more on this promise. Additionally, those of us here on earth, through compassionate and charitable efforts, can work to provide daily bread for those less fortunate and bring them to a place of self-sufficiency.

Pardon

In the next phrase, Jesus switches the focus to heaven: “Forgive us our debts.” This action again is a second person imperative, and the focus of the action takes place in heaven. Jesus declares us forgiven from the right hand of the Father. After all, it is his shed blood that purchased forgiveness, and his resurrection confirmed that he is both the Son of God and the one that has authority to forgive sins.

The next phrase is the only first person statement in the prayer, and as such, I think an important focus in the prayer. The scene moves back to earth: “As we also have forgiven our debtors.” Verses 14–15, immediately following the prayer, are an important contextual clue that this phrase is the focus of the Lord’s Prayer. If we forgive others here on earth, God forgives our sins; if we don’t forgive others, God won’t forgive our sins.

Protection

God providing our needs and forgiving our sins is essential for our physical and spiritual well-being. It is the best protection we have against the corruption of our souls and against falling into sin. But sometimes, the evil that comes at us may seem larger than life, and we need God’s extra protection to get through the really difficult times.

“Lead us not into temptation” brings the focus back to earth, and returns to the use of a second person verb, but this time, it’s subjunctive. In English terms, that means it rises to the level of an earnest plea: “Please, please, O God, do not lead us into temptation!” It’s one thing for us to ask God to help us in this way; it’s quite another if we intentionally put ourselves in a position to be tempted. The plea recognizes that sometimes, we can’t keep the birds from flying overhead, as Martin Luther put it, but that we can keep them from building a nest on our head. In the modern media and Internet culture, temptation is just a click away. We often need to rely on God’s strength and guidance to keep us out of situations where we might be compromised.

The final phrase, “Deliver us from the evil one,” (back to a second person imperative) returns the focus to heaven again, and brings to mind the passage in Ephesians 6 about the armor of God. Paul says in 6:12 that “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.” This is why the modern translations say “from the evil one” instead of the classic “from evil.” The Greek word for “evil” in the Lord’s Prayer has the definite article with it, and that implies that it’s not talking about a concept, but an actual evil person, someone who intends you harm. Jesus intends us to put a face on the concept. And that doesn’t necessarily always refer to Satan. It can be anyone here on earth or any of the forces Paul mentions above from the heavenly realms who intend us harm.

When Paul exhorts us in Ephesians 6:13 to “put on the full armor of God,” this is our God-given arsenal to “deliver us from the evil one.” What many people don’t realize about that phrase is that the armor of God doesn’t come from some divine arsenal that has an unlimited supply of breastplates, helmets, and shields. Every reference to a defensive piece of armor or the dual-purpose sword has its origin in the Old Testament, and they are all pieces that God himself wears. So “armor of God” means God’s own personal armor! In other words, we’ve got the best!

Conclusion

The Lord’s Prayer is a model prayer, but it is so much more as I’ve tried to show here. As a model, it serves as a daily defense against the things that would try to rob us of our spiritual health and joy in Christ. It encourages us to forgive as we have been forgiven so we can have healthy relationships with family and friends. It shows that we rely on God to give us just what we need each and every day. It is our way to stay connected to the Savior and know his love and protection each and every day.

My thoughts are my own,

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

Comments (2)

February 9, 2019

#ToxicMasculinity: Walking Like an Egyptian Pharaoh

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Courage,Evil,Exodus,Faith, Faithfulness,Spiritual Warfare,Women in Leadership — Scott Stocking @ 4:13 pm
Tags: Exodus 1:16, Exodus 3:5-11

Toxic masculinity is a hot topic these days, but I’ve yet to hear a clear definition of it from the media. As I was reading through the first few chapters of Exodus today, however, I saw several examples of it.

Extreme Toxicity: Pharaoh

The one that sticks out most to me is Pharaoh himself. In Exodus 1:16, Pharaoh is afraid of the Hebrews becoming too numerous, so he orders the midwives to kill all male babies as they are being delivered. The female (note the gender here) midwives, however, have great courage and integrity, and refuse to obey Pharaoh’s command to practice perinatal abortions founded on gender discrimination. Not only that, this is also a prima facie example of the rich and powerful oppressing, abusing, and dare I say even murdering the poor, weak, and defenseless. When Pharaoh realizes the midwives aren’t able to carry out his command, he takes his toxic masculinity to the next level and orders that the baby boys be thrown into the Nile River (Ex 1:22). It is important to know here that the females fear God’s (or their gods’) retribution if they kill the innocent, while Pharaoh has no fear of God.

Pharaoh overplays both his responsibility for leadership and defense of others. He overplays his leadership responsibility by becoming a tyrant with respect to the Hebrews. He overplays his responsibility to defend those he’s responsible for by attempting to destroy those whom he views as a threat, even if that threat may be 20 to 30 years down the road. The ultimate source of his toxic masculinity is his lack of regard for the one true God, the God of the Hebrews, whose power he will soon come to experience.

Pathetic Toxicity: Moses

Moses, initially at least, represents the other extreme from Pharaoh. Moses has first-hand knowledge of God and even has an extended conversation with him. However, in spite of all the assurances God gives to Moses about being with him, giving him words to speak, and showing Pharaoh his mighty power, Moses plays the wimp card. “Who am I, God?” “I speak with faltering lips, God.” “Send someone else to do it, God.” Really, Moses? God gives him a rare gift, a full accounting of what God wants him to do (most of us feel like we’re guessing at that, right?), and he isn’t man enough to accept it, at least, to accept it willingly and enthusiastically. To Moses’s credit, though, once he starts to see God afflict Pharaoh and Egypt with the plagues, his reluctance wanes and his confidence in God’s purpose for his life grows exponentially.

Toxicity 2019: Men With No Chests

Is it a stretch to say that so-called men like @GovernorVA Ralph Northam and @NYGovCuomo Andrew Cuomo are not that far removed from Pharaoh’s toxicity? Like Pharaoh, these two toxically masculine State governors want to kill babies right up to the time of birth and even after birth. They have indeed regressed to a more primitive culture, hiding behind the guise of “Pro-Choice,” which is in itself a form of toxic femininity (judging from the tweets and retweets of New York Council on Women & Girls chairperson @Melissadderosa–she’s an icon of toxic femininity in New York). They prey on the weak for their own political gain, not caring one whit about the emotional impact on women and families or the cultural decline that such positions represent. It is an absolute power play of the rich and powerful.

And where are men who should be taking the lead opposing this toxicity? Let’s start with the men who father these children, then run away and make an intentional choice not to be involved in or support the care of the pregnant mother or the child that is born to the mother who has the courage and integrity to give the child a chance at life. That’s pathetic toxicity to be sure. And what about you, men of God? Are you silent on this issue? Is this a worthy battle to fight? Can we harness our righteous energy and lead with integrity? Can we fight for the things that matter most, like the sanctity and dignity of those created in the image of God? Can we show tender care for the weak, the helpless, those who have lost hope, and those who need a vision of heaven? Let us rise up and make our voices heard!

Conclusion

It is scary to think that the world has come almost full circle from the time of Pharaoh in Egypt over 3,000 years ago. This culture of despising life at its most vulnerable stages is toxic regardless of gender. Those who think they are “progressive” are lying to themselves; they have in fact put on display and are proud of their “regressive” policies. It’s time for the people of God to stand up for truth. God is with us! We need to be faithful to him and trust that he will win the victory for us just as he did when Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt toward the Promised Land. Remember, that God was always the one fighting for them; they never had to lift a finger in violence toward their enemies, and neither should we.

My opinions are my own.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

Comments (4)

« Previous Page — Next Page »

October 2, 2023

February 23, 2023

December 21, 2022

Abortion

“Exposure”: The Precursor to Abortion

Modern History of Abortion and Genocide

Gender Confusion

Reassignment or Mutilation?

Drag Queens: Objectifying and Degrading Women

Balancing Survival and Compassion

August 10, 2022

April 24, 2022

Variety of Interpretations

Setting the Stage

Defining “Revelation”

Location and Occasion

The OT Connection

Conclusion

March 13, 2022

The Roots of Temptation

Examples of Temptation

Temptation and Testing: The Word Study

OT Background for Jesus’s Temptation Narrative

The Temptation Narrative

How Temptations Lose Their Power

A Personal Testimony

The Promise of God

February 20, 2022

Flipping the Script on the Good Samaritan Parable

Who Is My Enemy?

What Does “Loving Your Enemy” Look Like?

Resistance Is Unfruitful

Slapping for Shame

Getting Naked for Jesus

Going the Extra Mile, Literally

Our Response

Are YOU Someone’s Enemy?

November 24, 2021

THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR FREEDOM OF CHOICE OVER ONE’S BODY

THE INTERSECTION OF MY FAITH WITH THE CONSTITUTION

HOW THE VACCINE MANDATE TRASHES THE DIGNITY OF HUMANITY

August 24, 2019

Overview

Praise

Provision

Pardon

Protection

Conclusion

February 9, 2019

Extreme Toxicity: Pharaoh

Pathetic Toxicity: Moses

Toxicity 2019: Men With No Chests

Conclusion

Search for posts.

Latest Posts

Pages and Class Materials

Find posts in these categories.

Follow Blog via Email