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

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)

January 12, 2019

Mystery of Immersion (Baptism), Part Two

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ephesians,Evangelism,Grace,Greek,Hebrews,Immersion/Baptism,Repentance,Resurrection,Romans,Soteriology,Spiritual Warfare,Thanatology (Death) — Scott Stocking @ 3:37 pm
Tags: baptism and death, Hebrews 9:14, Romans 3:23, Romans 5:10, Romans 7:14ff, Romans 8:2, Romans Study 2026

In my post from 6.5 years ago (has it been that long!), The Mystery of Immersion (Baptism), I argued that there is a “mystery” (in the classical sense) in immersion (a more accurate translation of the Greek word typically translated “baptism”) akin to what the Catholics attribute to the Eucharist (Communion or the Lord’s Supper to us Protestants). In reading through Romans this time around, I still believe immersion must have a special place in the life of a Christ-follower, but I am even more convinced of the efficacy (and practicality) of immersion to bond us to Christ.

The Blood of Christ

Many Christ followers know Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” But the real hope is found in the two verses that follow: “and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.” Christ’s faithfulness to death on the cross, that is, to submitting to the shedding of blood, is the foundation for our forgiveness. As Hebrews 9:22 says, “Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.”

Throughout Romans, Paul makes contrasts between death and life. Romans 5:9–10 is quite striking in this contrast: “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” [Note the “how” statements are NOT questions!]

I have argued elsewhere that Christ’s complete, unfailing obedience to the Law qualifies him as “the Righteous one.” It is because he is righteous that his sacrifice can impart righteousness to us. Paul says as much in Romans 7:4: “So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.” Hebrews 9:14 says it in a different way: “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we my serve the living God!”

The Waters of Immersion

I believe the centerpiece of Romans 1–11 is chapter 6, Paul’s discussion about immersion. Romans 1–11 is an intense theological statement on how God, through Christ’s shed blood, not only purchased salvation for us, but also restores us to a right relationship with God and with our brothers and sisters in the faith. When Paul says in Romans 6:3: “Or don’t you know that all of us who were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death?” he’s making a solid connection between the blood of Christ and the waters of immersion. It is almost as if Paul is declaring the act of immersion to be a reverse typology.

Typology, in the biblical sense anyway, looks at an event in the past and shows how that points to Christ. Here, Christ’s death has already happened, and the significance of that requires a significant event in our own lives to make the connection. Immersion, then, is not merely (not even?) a symbolic act that we can dismiss as merely a “work of the flesh,” as some try to do, but it is an event oozing with meaning and purpose, so much so that it is foolish for a Christ-follower to ignore it or think it’s not for them. Setting aside for a moment the debate about whether immersion is a sine qua non event for salvation, let’s look at what else we glean about immersion from this section of Scripture. These gleanings fall into two categories: how Christ’s death benefits us spiritually, and how Christ’s resurrection benefits us practically.

United with Christ’s Death (Romans 6:5a)

Justified by his blood: Romans 5 is truly amazing in that it demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt what God’s grace is. In 5:6, Paul says “When we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.” Rewind. Repeat. Yes, we had absolutely nothing to do with it. We were powerless, Paul says. We couldn’t effect any spiritual benefit to ourselves if we tried. But not only that, and this is the real kicker, Christ died for the ungodly. What? He says it again in a different way (v. 8b): “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us!” You mean we don’t have to “get right with God” first before Christ’s death becomes effectual for us? Now that is grace! Weak and undeserving as we were, enemies of God (v. 10), Christ still died for us. And the end result of that is we are justified; “just as if I’d” never sinned. Christ grants us his right standing—a result of his perfect obedience to the Law—before God

Reconciled to God: In 5:10, Paul speaks of being reconciled to God. This means that our relationship with God is mended, restored. We’re no longer enemies, no longer slaves to sin, no longer considered ungodly; God looks at us and sees Christ.

Dead to the Law: The Law is good because it makes us aware of sin, but it is also the source of condemnation. As I said above, because Christ fulfilled the Law, those of us in Christ have the full credit of fulfilling the Law through him. As Romans 8:1 says, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Dead to sin: In 7:14ff, Paul speaks of the hypothetical “I” who is “unspiritual.” Without the Spirit, Paul has little to no control over the sinful nature. The law of sin wages war against God’s law. But as with the previous point, Paul clears this up in Romans 8:2: “Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set your free from the law of sin and death.” You can live for God unencumbered!

Cleanse our conscience: Hebrews 9:14a reemphasizes these points from Romans. “The blood of Christ… [will] cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death.” The author of Hebrews further brings home the point in 10:22: “Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.” Could that be the waters of immersion?

United in Christ’s Resurrection (Romans 6:5b)

Bear fruit for God: Along with the benefits linked to the death of Christ in Romans 5–7 and elsewhere, we also see benefits linked to the resurrection. Romans 7:4 sounds a bit like Ephesians 2:10 and the good works God prepared in advance for us to do: “That [we] might belong…to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.”

Death has no power over us: Romans 5:9 and 10 tell us we are saved from God’s wrath and saved through Christ’s life (post-resurrection). In 6:8–9, Paul emphasizes that death no longer has mastery over Christ, and since Christ-followers are united with Christ in his resurrection, they also share that victory over death.

Seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6): The first part of Ephesians is a glorious picture of our position in Christ in the heavenly realms. Not only are we made alive with Christ (even when dead in transgression!), but we are raised up with him and seated with him in the heavenly realms. And if there was any doubt how that happens, the grace of God pervades that passage of Scripture as it does through the first three chapters of Ephesians.

Serve the living God (Hebrews 9:14b): Most of us, regardless of our age, heard or have heard JFK’s quote: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Just change “country” to “God” and you’ve got the idea of Hebrews 9:14b. What a glorious privilege to serve in the courts of the eternal, living, gracious God. Can you think of any service that would lead to any greater eternal reward or greater feeling of satisfaction and personal fulfillment?

Living Sacrifice

Because Romans 1–11 ends with a glowing doxology, we can safely assume that Paul is closing out his theological argument and moving into the realm of practical application in 12–16. The “therefore” in 12:1, then, refers back to the entire argument, especially with immersion as the centerpiece. When Paul says: “I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship,” it becomes quite clear that he’s making an altar call to immersion and all that goes with it, as I have just described above.

Paul begins and ends Romans with a curious phrase: “the obedience of faithfulness” (1:5, 16:26; for more on this, see my Obedience in Romans post). But in 5:19, right before Paul launches into his treatise on baptism, he seems to revisit that idea, giving us a clue that he has reached the point where he’s delivering the main thrust of his argument. “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Jesus is that one man who was obedient to God’s law, and as a result, his death and resurrection purchased our forgiveness and salvation, and our unity with those two events in immersion absolutely solidifies our connection with the Savior.

Conclusion

When you examine the context around Paul’s treatise on immersion in Romans 6, you begin to see that chapter 6 is not an isolated excursus on one theological point, but that immersion is the glue that ties the two “pillars” of the faith (Christ’s death and his subsequent resurrection) together in a neat theological “type.” Not only that, but the many blessings that Christ-followers experience are linked to immersion by virtue of their inclusion in the broader context of chapters 5–7. Immersion, then, is not something to be taken lightly, or sluffed off as a mere work of the flesh, but it is a near-complete picture of who we are and what we have in Christ. When the implications of immersion are rightly understood, there can be no doubt that it is an essential event in the life of a Christian, not just a reference point for salvation, but an expression that we’re all-in for Christ.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My views are my own.

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the 2011 version of the NIV.

Comments (9)

March 31, 2012

When Iron Sharpens Iron, Sparks Fly (Proverbs 27:17)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Hebrew,Old Testament,Proverbs,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 6:55 am
Tags: Iron sharpens iron, men's ministry, mutual encouragement, Proverbs 27:17

One of my favorite sections of Proverbs is 27:14–21. Here it is from the newest version of the NIV:

¹⁴If anyone loudly blesses their neighbor early in the morning,

it will be taken as a curse.

¹⁵A quarrelsome wife is like the dripping

of a leaky roof in a rainstorm;

¹⁶restraining her is like restraining the wind

or grasping oil with the hand.

¹⁷As iron sharpens iron,

so one person sharpens another.

¹⁸The one who guards a fig tree will eat its fruit,

and whoever protects their master will be honored.

¹⁹As water reflects the face,

so one’s life reflects the heart.

²⁰Death and Destruction are never satisfied,

and neither are human eyes.

²¹The crucible for silver and the furnace for gold,

but people are tested by their praise.

Good Morning?

I’ve always been a morning person. I get up daily by 5:30 to get my Bible study in and get ready for work. But many years ago, when I came across Proverbs 27:14, I was in utter disbelief that such a verse would be in the Bible. Morning people are a curse to their neighbors! Now admittedly, I’m dealing with this a little tongue-in-cheek. I think most of us know what this verse is really talking about. You know the type, the one who sees you dragging into work before the coffee or other caffeinated beverage kicks in and decides to have a little fun at your expense. “Hi, Scott! Beautiful morning, isn’t it? Just breathe in that fresh morning air!” You want to turn around and smack the guy silly, right? Now of course, I’m not advocating that.

Keep in mind that Proverbs is not a book of commands, but a book of pithy generalities about life. They are statements that ring true to us about the way things are, but they were never intended to be transformed into commands. If you’re obnoxious early in the morning, some people just aren’t going to like that. In fact, the next two verses seem to have a similar theme: being obnoxious doesn’t win you any friends.

Good Wife?

The imagery Solomon applies to quarrelsome wives is even more striking. If you’ve ever had a leaky roof, you know exactly what he’s talking about. About a year ago, the same week I was moving out of my mom’s basement and into my own place, their upstairs toilet started leaking pretty bad into what had been my bedroom. It was a mess, to say the least, and a pain to keep up with. And trying to reason with a quarrelsome wife? Forget about it! Not only is it difficult to hold oil in your hand, but it’s also hard to get off unless you use some hot water and soap. Your hands feel slimy until you can get the oil off of them.

Good Men?

This brings me to Proverbs 27:17, a verse that is at the heart of nearly every men’s ministry message and program that’s ever been published. But as I’m prone to do, I’m about to shatter that long-held belief that the verse refers to positive male camaraderie. A look at the Hebrew of the verse and a little common sense about metallurgy will help make the point.

Have you ever watched someone forge a sword? First of all, you have to get the metal hot enough to melt into the basic shape of the sword. Then once the sword has its basic shape, it’s repeatedly subjected to the hot fire and hammered on an anvil to refine its shape and give it its edge. Once it has the length and temper it needs to be a good sword, the smith gives it its sharp edge by grinding and polishing. It is at that step of the process that we see the true nature of Proverbs 27:17.

When iron strikes iron, or even when iron sharpens iron, sparks fly. The Hebrew word for “sharpen” (חָדַד, ḥā∙ḏǎḏ) here is only used six times in the Old Testament: twice in Proverbs 27:17, three times in Ezekiel 21:9–11, and once in Habakkuk 1:8. Solomon’s use of the word in Proverbs 27:17 seems rather innocuous if we fail to look past the popular modern interpretation, but it is the second half of the verse that really got me thinking that this might not be the comfortable camaraderie often portrayed: “one man sharpens the face of a friend.” Now I ask you, does that sound like mutual encouragement? Does that sound like a slap on the back? NO! The passages in Ezekiel speak of the sword being sharpened for the slayer going out to slaughter. Habakkuk uses it to describe the fierceness of horsemen going out to battle. It sounds more like two guys battling each other just to stay ahead. It sounds like they might be getting on each other’s nerves. Granted, that could be for the better, but I think the context may suggest otherwise.

You still don’t believe me? An obnoxious morning person? A quarrelsome wife? She’s compared to oil, wind, a dripping faucet. But two men going at it? Iron on iron. Sparks are flying, baby. No holds barred. Hear the clank of hammer and steel on the anvil. Feel the crushing pain of missing the anvil and striking your thumb, times ten! And what about the verses that come after? Guarding, protecting: sounds like dangerous guy stuff. Death and Destruction never being satisfied: ’nuff said. Crucibles: subjected to the heat of purifying fire.

I think verse 19 is the crux verse here: “As water reflects the face, so one’s life reflects the heart.” I’ve been reading John Eldredge lately (Wild at Heart; Beautiful Outlaw), so I’m kind of pumped on guy stuff right now. I’m rediscovering what he calls the deep heart of a man: “a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue.” I’ve been asking myself what my life shows about my heart. Has it shown that I’m a warrior or a wimp? I’ve certainly picked my fights like William Wallace. They didn’t involve guns or swords, however. But they did often attack issues of the heart, especially greed and corruption. Those can be just as ugly as any battle scene from Braveheart. The trouble was, my “beauty” at the time didn’t want anything to do with my battle. That struck at the core of my manhood, and I’ve been climbing back ever since.

Guys, what does your life reflect about your heart? Are you the man’s man that Eldredge talks about in Wild at Heart? Or have you become a restrained Mr. Incredible, forced to keep your super powers in check behind an office desk because society is afraid of the inherent threat you pose to their comfort? If you haven’t read anything by John Eldredge, I would encourage you to get hold of a copy of Wild at Heart. The principles in there have taken me to a new level of manhood in my life, but I can still see that I have a long way to go. And if you’re in Omaha, beginning April 21, 2012, at StoneBridge Christian Church, 8:00 a.m., our men’s group will begin a nine-week series on Beautiful Outlaw.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

StoneBridge Christian Church is located at 15801 Butler Street, between Fort and Maple.

Comments (1)

March 23, 2012

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

Filed under: 1 Thessalonians,Biblical Studies,Courage,Ecclesiology,Ephesians,Faith, Faithfulness,Isaiah,Old Testament,Soteriology,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 7:37 am
Tags: 000000, 1 Thessalonians 5:8, Armor of God, Ephesians 6:17, Helmet of Salvation, Isaiah 59:17, Panoply, Spiritual Warfare

Check out this exclusive Logos Affiliate Deal from SMGB! Logos 10 Package Deal

When my kids were learning how to ride their bicycles, I was a bit obsessive about them using a helmet. Now when I was a kid (many moons ago, now), neither my parents nor I ever gave a second thought to riding my bike without a helmet. Helmets were for football, not bike riding. Granted, the helmet cannot save you from any and all injuries, which is one of the common arguments used by motorcycle riders opposed to mandatory helmet laws. But it is a measure of protection that gave me an added sense of security as a parent as my kids were learning how to be more independent. Now that my son has his driver’s license and my daughter is only weeks away from getting her learner’s permit, I’m obsessing about safety all over again. I’m not making everyone wear helmets when he drives, obviously. But Solomon was right. “There is nothing new under the sun.”

In three passages of Scripture, God uses the “helmet” (Heb. כֹּובַע) image to describe the salvation he freely offers (Isaiah 59:17; Ephesians 6:17; and 1 Thessalonians 5:8). In Isaiah 59:17, the prophet says that God “put[s] on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on His head.” In the context of Isaiah 59, God is “displeased that there [is] no justice” (vs. 15b). God’s salvation and righteousness are necessary to turn the tide of injustice in Israel. This word for helmet is only used six times in the Old Testament, but the Isaiah passage is the only time where God is said to wear this piece of armor. If God is all powerful, he doesn’t need armor, so obviously this is figurative language here. But this also betrays another myth we have about spiritual armor. We think it is defensive. But in this passage, God is not on the defense. He is moving forward in an offensive against injustice. He’s getting ready to execute his vengeance!

As I have mentioned before in other contexts, God’s salvation here goes far beyond our own personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Yes, each of us individually can personally receive God’s salvation, but not solely for our own benefit. God’s salvation here has national (and international) implications. God wants the nation of Israel to be saved, as well as the individuals within the nation.

The apostle Paul has this multifaceted view of salvation-justice as well. In 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul urges everyone to pray for “kings and authorities” so we may lead “peaceful lives,” because God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Isaiah’s image of the helmet fits well here. God wants you and I to serve as ambassadors who will proclaim his salvation not only to individuals, but his justice to our leaders as well (see also Eph 3:8–11, Romans 13:1–7). We do this by our behavior as well as by the words we speak. As Christians, we are not primarily on defense. We should be advancing in the power of the gospel, taking every thought captive (2 Corinthians 10:3–6) and storming the gates of hell (Matthew 16:18).

For too long the more conservative, non-mainline denominations have put justice on the back burner, usually treating symptoms (soup kitchens, used clothing stores, etc.) while not addressing the causes (economic oppression, government policies, waste, etc.). Fortunately, more and more Christians are beginning to recognize that a witness of social justice is an important part of declaring God’s salvation to the lost, hopeless, and oppressed. And interestingly enough, the more it seems we concern ourselves with social justice, the more intense the persecution becomes against Christians. I’d say that means we must be doing something right to concern ourselves with God’s salvation-justice.

The bicycle helmet cannot protect us from skinned knees and elbows. We need kneepads, elbow pads and wrist braces if we are really serious about protecting ourselves as we ride the highways and byways of this nation. God’s helmet of salvation is only part of the “whole armor of God” that defends us against the onslaught of Satan and his forces. Not only is it defensive, but His armor terrifies our foes and causes them to retreat as they see us advancing against them in God’s might.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

A qr code on a white background linking to an exclusive deal from Logos Bible Software.

Scan QR code above to exclusive Logos Affiliate deal from SMGB!

Comments (7)

October 12, 2011

Spiritual Warfare in Ephesians

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Ephesians,Eschatology,Greek,Hope,New Testament,Prayer,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 7:11 pm
Tags: Authorities, Heavenly Realms, Love and the Powers, Powers and Principalities, Prayer and the Powers, Violence and the Powers, Walter Wink

Paul’s letter to the Ephesian believers is a goldmine of theological truth and practical living. Paul writes about our standing in Christ in the first three chapters, and then makes an obvious switch in tone in the final three chapters to speak about how we should live in Christ (there are 40+ imperative verbs in the last three chapters of Ephesians, as opposed to 1 imperative verb in the first three chapters). As I will show in this post, this letter has a very nice overall chiastic structure, numerous patterns of three, and definite subtheme of spiritual warfare. Ephesians is so eminently practical that I used to joke I couldn’t preach a sermon without referencing Ephesians at some point. I have had the NIV text of Ephesians memorized for almost 20 years now, but with the release of the new NIV this year, I guess I’ll have to upgrade my memory!

The Overall Structure of Ephesians

Many scholars and study Bibles have presented various outlines of Ephesians. Watchman Nee, a prominent Brethren preacher in China in the mid 20^thcentury, wrote an excellent treatise on Ephesians called Sit, Walk, Stand. His rough outline is that we have to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn who we are in Christ before we can walk in faith and stand against the powers of darkness. The irony of walking before standing does not escape his treatise either. Several years ago, I discerned the following outline, and this has been my schema for approaching Ephesians.

I. 1:1–14 Introduction and Blessing

II. 1:15–18a Opening Prayer for Enlightenment

A. 1:18b The Hope to which he has called you

B. 1:18c The Riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints

C. 1:19a His incomparably great Power

III. 1:19b-6:24 The Enlightenment Offered

C. 1:19b–2:10 The Resurrection

B. 2:11–3:21 Coheirs with Israel (2:12, 19; 3:6)

A. 4:1–6:24 Hopeful Living

1. 4:1–16 Life empowered by God’s blessing and grace

2. 4:17–5:21 Life among the pagans

3. 5:22–6:9 Life in your own household

4. 6:10–20 “Life” in the heavenly realms

IV. 6:21–24 Conclusion

Power, Riches, and Hope.

What more could a Christ-follower ask out of one epistle? Power, riches, and hope. But the power of the resurrection actually pervades the epistle in Paul’s characterization of the Christ-follower’s life “in the heavenly realms.” Paul uses that phrase (ἐν τοῖς
ἐπουράνιοις en tois epouraniois, \en toyss eh-pooh-RAH-nee-oyss\) five times in Ephesians (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; and 6:12). In the opening verses, Paul assures the believers that they, corporately, have the fullness of God’s spiritual blessing for carrying out his will “on earth as it is in heaven.” We know from the next two verses (1:20; 2:6) that the heavenly realms are where we are “seated together” with Christ. Up through chapter 2, then, it appears that “the heavenly realms” is just another expression for heaven itself; but as we will see in chapters 3 and 6, the concept is much broader.

In chapter 3, there are those in the heavenly realms, identified as rulers (ἀρχή archē, \ar KHAY\; you have to clear your throat a bit to say the KH) and authorities (ἐξουσία exousia, \eks ooh SEE ah\), to whom the “church” (ἐκκλησία ekklēsia, \ek klay SEE ah\, God’s “congregation” on earth) is responsible to reveal the mystery of the gospel. This statement makes it rather obvious that the phrase ἐν τοῖς ἐπουράνιοις does not refer to “heaven” (οὐρανός ouranos, \ooh rah NAWSS\) proper, the eternal dwelling place of God’s holy ones. We know everyone in heaven knows about the gospel, but who are those “in the heavenly realms” that need to know about it? Chapter 6 broadens the scope even more: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” So the heavenly realms encompass the entire spectrum from good to evil. But again, who are the inhabitants?

Walter Wink and Language of Power in the New Testament

For the answer to that question, I turn to the man who is probably the world’s leading scholar on the language of power in the New Testament, Walter Wink. If you’re not a pacifist, you might have a little trouble swallowing some of his liberal theology, but if you read his works, keep an open mind, because I believe he has profound insight into the concept of spiritual warfare. (I’m becoming more of a pacifist myself as I get older, but I’m not necessarily opposed to all wars.) His Powers trilogy (Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers, Engaging the Powers) is nicely condensed into a very readable volume entitled The Powers That Be (from which I will derive most of the material I present here). To put it simply, the powers and authorities of which the Bible speaks are entities created by God as stewards of various institutions in life (material or abstract), but they are also influenced by the people who inhabit those institutions. The powers are in the same boat as we humans, but on a much larger stage. They are, according to Wink (p. 31):

Created good;
Fallen; and
In need of redemption.

I cannot go into the details of Wink’s description of the powers, but in a nutshell they are the spiritual entities that, in a pure state, watch over human institutions for the common good they were designed to fulfill. Families are one example of an institution. Your own immediate family may have one power (akin to a guardian angel in my own thinking, but I’m not sure Wink would agree), but your extended family has another power that “governs” (or perhaps is governed by) the individual family powers. Do you behave differently at home than you do around your grown brothers and sisters? That may be the powers at work.

Businesses and corporations are also institutions influencing and influenced by powers. If you read the mission statements or core values of most corporations, you will see that they ideally exist to further the common good. However, when corrupt individuals begin to exercise wicked influence within a corporate setting, powers begin to take on the nature of the “corporate culture” and may even be or become the culture itself. If an individual bucks or rebels against the prevailing corporate culture, for good or evil, the corporate culture will generally disenfranchise the rebel. Just look at Enron, for example. Much of what happened there perpetuated itself after a while. Whistleblowers are not well liked when calling a corporation to accountability.

On the other hand, when a corporation does something right, it becomes a win-win situation. The Tylenol scare back in the 80s is a perfect example of this. Tylenol was forced to recall millions of dollars worth of product because of some isolated tampering incidents. Even though the incidents were local, Tylenol’s maker recognized the gravity of the safety issues involved and took the loss. Tylenol is still around today, 30 years later, along with its generic competitors. In doing the right thing, they not only set an example for the employees and their families that they care about integrity, but they also sent a powerful message resounding through the corporate world: “Do the right thing no matter the cost.”

Violence and the Powers

Violence also has a powerful influence on the powers, according to Wink. Violence can include anything from yelling and screaming to bribery to the use of deception and deadly force to obtain one’s ends. Violence breeds more violence and establishes a culture of violence. Wink distinguishes between the legitimate use of force to restrain evildoers and violence, which is the “morally illegitimate or excessive use of force” (p. 159). The ultimate goal, in Wink’s view, is nonviolent conflict resolution regardless of the nature or intensity of the conflict. By extension, you can say the same things about sexuality and pornography, gambling, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse. When any of those abuses of the created order become inappropriately prominent in an institutional culture, the culture becomes corrupt and in need of redemption.

Prayer, the Church, and the Powers

So what does all this have to do with you and me? I return to Ephesians 3:10 and 6:12. The body of Christ has the responsibility to work redemptively in the face of corrupt institutions and corrupt culture. Every time Christ-followers share the gospel with unbelievers, they speak not only to the unbelievers but to the powers and authorities that have influence on the unbeliever. Whenever Christ-followers speak out and act peaceably and redemptively against corporate and societal injustices, they send a powerful message to the powers and authorities behind those institutions. In some respects, it may be a numbers game: the more Christ-followers show they care about justice, peace, and redemption, the more influence that has on the powers.

But Wink takes the whole concept one step further by invoking prayer. Regardless of what you think about his general theology, I think Wink hits the nail on the head when it comes to prayer. A couple quotes from his chapter on “Prayer and the Powers” (p. 180ff) make the point: “Prayer is never a private inner act disconnected from day-to-day realities. It is, rather, the interior battlefield where the decisive victory is won before any engagement in the outer world is even possible….Unprotected by prayer, our social activism runs the danger of becoming self-justifying good works” (p. 181). A little later he writes, “The profound truth of this worldview is that everything visible has an invisible or heavenly dimension. Prayer in this worldview is a matter of reversing the flow of fated events from on high to earth, and initiating a new flow from earth to heaven that causes God’s will to be done ‘on earth as it is in heaven.’…What happens next happens because people pray” (pp. 182–3). So prayer combined with action is at the heart of spiritual warfare. Neither one is sufficient by itself, but of the two, I would argue that prayer is eminently more powerful in opening the doors of opportunity.

Some Examples, Positive and Negative

My brother (who will be back on American soil this week) spent the last year in Afghanistan with his construction unit building infrastructure for the Afghani army. That, in my mind, is a nonviolent means to support the legitimate defense of a sovereign nation. (I’m proud of him and his crew and what they accomplished, and the whole family is anxiously awaiting his return to Omaha.) I taught a course last year in Las Vegas and have a few former students who are working redemptively in the gambling industry. It’s not a concession to the gambling industry, but an opportunity to fight the good fight in the heavenly realms.

On the flip side, Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, has the wrong attitude about spiritual warfare. Whatever one may think about their sincerity, their protests against homosexuality and the military only serve to fuel the violence of the powers. The hate that spews forth from their actions and words comes nowhere close to bringing redemption to the powers in my opinion. In fact, one of the best ways to confront evil is to promote an attitude of love. This doesn’t mean tolerance of sin, but a respect for each person as uniquely human and worthy of respect as a special creation of God. As individual behaviors change, the powers respond. But individual behaviors change not from protests and words of condemnation, but from individual acts of love and service toward one another. If God’s kindness leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4), shouldn’t we expect our own kindness to do the same for those within our sphere of influence?

I myself have had experience on both sides. At one time in my ministry, I wrote passionately against homosexuality. But I also came to realize that if I didn’t get out and actually meet and interact with homosexuals, my words would fall on deaf ears, and I’d only be preaching to the choir. When I began to develop some social relationships with homosexuals, I began to see the impact I could have in making a positive presentation of Christianity. It wasn’t that every homosexual with whom I came in contact became a heterosexual, but some did begin to have a positive attitude toward Christianity where there had only been hatred and vitriol before.

The same can be said for a Christian response to abortion. We have a more powerful impact against abortion by supporting a woman through an unplanned pregnancy, helping her to bring the baby to term, than we ever will with all of our protests and (even worse) the vandalism and bombing of abortion clinics or the murder of abortion doctors.

This is why Paul is able to speak so highly of love in 1 Corinthians 13. Love is the ultimate tool (I refuse to call it a weapon) in the fight against sin, evil, and corruption, and at a minimum, it has to happen one person at a time. Love is superior to all other actions, and when we “live a life of love” (Ephesians 5:2), we speak to the redemption of the spiritual forces at work in the heavenly realms.

Conclusion

Spiritual warfare is a topic that has a lot of craziness around it, as well as a lot of well-intentioned but sadly misguided theology. I hope this post has enlightened you on the concept, and I pray that you will recognize the power that you have to speak and act redemptively as warriors in the battle in the heavenly realms. Put on the whole armor of God, and you will be ready to fight the good fight boldly and victoriously.

Peace!

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My views are my own.

Comments (5)

September 18, 2011

“We Despaired of Life Itself”: 2 Corinthians 1:8–11; 4:7–10

Filed under: 2 Corinthians,Biblical Studies,forgiveness,Greek,Paxton Illinois,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 8:48 am
Tags: Pain of divorce, Perseverance, separation from children, single dad

⁸We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself. ⁹Indeed, we felt we had received the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. ¹⁰He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us again. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, ¹¹as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many.

My oldest brother, Neal, and his oldest son, Jeff, have been deployed in Afghanistan for the past year with their respective Guard units. Neal, who has been leading a couple construction units in two different parts of Afghanistan, is due to come home next month. Jeff has been serving as an MP at one of our bases in Afghanistan and will probably be home sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas. I am proud of both of them and applaud them for their service to and sacrifice for our country. Both of Neal’s kids are grown. Jeff’s residence is in Omaha, and his son Chris lives in Kansas City. Neal’s wife Anne has been an absolute trooper as well, holding down the homestead in Omaha, and we’ve done what we can to support her and keep her engaged with the family in this time. It hasn’t been easy for her, but I hope she knows we have her back. Jeff is “unattached” (so far as we know, anyway!), but he still has his circle of friends whom I’m sure he misses and can’t wait to be reunited with.

My own life in the past year has been a microcosm of Jeff’s and Neal’s experience in the past year. One year ago this week, God “deployed” me back to my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska, to experience some victory over the long battle I fought in Illinois with underemployment. I do not regret that during my underemployment in Illinois, I had the freedom to be there for my kids on a daily basis. I was the “soccer dad”, getting them to school every day (and sometimes subbing for their teachers!) and to their appointments, practices, games, and other events with friends. I was involved in every aspect of their lives.

Divorce wrenched me away from all that. Without full-time work in Illinois, and with zero hits on the countless positions (over two years of daily searching job opportunities; I lost count of how many) I applied for in Chicago and other places close to home, and with no other family nearby, it was impossible for me to support myself there and provide the kind of support for my kids that they deserved. I had distinctly heard God calling me back to Nebraska (“There Is No Place Like Nebraska” kept ringing in my ears), and I knew that’s where God wanted me to go. Upon reflection, I think the homesickness I had been feeling for Nebraska since about 2005 may have been God telling me that I should have gone back then, but uprooting the kids seemed out of the question, and it certainly would have been a battle with my current ex I probably would not have won, or it may have forced her hand to file for divorce then. That’s all speculation and water under the bridge now, and when I had no other choice after the divorce, I went forward with my plans to come back to Nebraska and be a “boomerang child.”

God honored my faithfulness to follow his lead in several ways. I got hired my first full day back in Nebraska for the first FT job I’d had in years. It was a temp job, but I was back on my feet. That led to my current job, the best-paying job I’ve ever held in my life. It’s a great job, and I’m using all my skills, from math to English to writing and editing. I also got reconnected to my former church. Fort Street Christian Church sent me off to seminary 24 years ago, and when I came back last year, Fort Street had become StoneBridge. Attendance had quintupled, and the congregation was as vibrant as any I had ever experienced. I made connections and new friends almost immediately, and I have experienced a great deal of spiritual and personal growth through my involvement there. The church has become my family here; I wasn’t going to sit around and bemoan the lost daily interaction with my kids, and I’ve used my relocation as an opportunity for God get some work done in me that I had neglected as a busy dad and resident home-improvement servant. My brother and nephew get hazard pay for being on foreign soil. My hazard pay has been the spiritual growth I’ve experienced.

But amidst that, I’ve still been struggling with the separation from my kids. It’s been difficult to meet my financial obligations, and as such, I haven’t been able to see my kids as often as I like. My ex refuses to meet me half-way to transfer the kids, so I have to make the 8-hour, one-way trip whenever I want to see them and spring for a hotel room. And if I want to bring them back to Omaha with me, that’s another 8–10 hours in the car. My ex constantly reminds me how that’s a “punishment” for the kids and that pretty much everything else I do is “punishment” for them, taking them away from their friends and activities to come to Omaha to spend time with me, and that it was my choice to move 500 miles from the kids (never mind I’m providing a lot more child support from here than I could have from Illinois; more “hazard pay” for the family). I know it’s not punishment, but sacrifice, but some days the stress of my separation makes me feel like Paul in the 2 Corinthians passage I quoted above.

I know the God of all comfort knew what he was doing when he deployed me to Nebraska. I have already seen some of the fruit he is bearing in my life, as my half-sister and dad have started coming to StoneBridge as well. I have a renewed spiritual vigor and great opportunities for service. But that has been kept in check by the incredible sense of loss I feel at being separated from my kids. Yes, I still have regular contact with them on the phone and through Skype (when the video connection works), but as you might imagine, it’s not the same for me or for my kids. I feel the despair of death some days, the pain is that deep, but I know God and my brothers and sisters in Christ and my family are upholding me.

For those of you looking for the Greek (and I debated whether I should include any at all in this post), here it is. Paul uses the Greek word for “despair” ἐξαπορέομαι (exaporeomai, \eks ah paw REH aw my\) or ἐξαπορέω (exaporeō, \eks ah paw REH oh\) only twice in all his writings (and the only two times in the New Testament). Strong’s Enhanced Lexicon says the word derives from ἐκ (ek, ‘from’ or ‘out of’) + ἀ (a, negative prefix) + πορεύομαι (poreuomai, ‘go’), or in other words, “not go out of” or figuratively “internalize,” thus Paul’s comment about feeling the weight of the pressure he’s under. I can see that, but I also discern another possible etymology: ἐκ (ek, ‘from’ or ‘out of’) + ἀπό (apo, ‘away from’) + ῥέω (rheō, ‘flow’), or “go out of and away from” or figuratively “abandon”. Either etymology is fitting of my own situation. The only other time Paul uses the word is a couple chapters later in 2 Corinthians 4:7–10:

⁷But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. ⁸We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; ⁹persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.
¹⁰We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.

The word for “perplexed” (contrasted with “despair”) in this passage is the same word in Greek without the ἐκ- prefix. As with the passage from chapter 1, this passage also brings me comfort: I’m at my wits’ end, but I haven’t yet given up all hope, although I feel the pressure to give up more and more. And maybe that’s the point of all this. Like 2 Corinthians 1:9 says, all this is happening so that I might not rely on myself (I’m certainly finding out that’s not working), but that I should rely totally and completely on God. After all, he raised the dead; he can certainly see me through my current struggles.

A side note: I know I may have come across a little harsh on my ex-wife here, but that is the reality of my situation. I know she is doing the best she can for the kids, and I’m sure she feels a different kind of pressure dealing with the kids daily without me being in the area to provide regular relief. In spite of our continued arguments about things, I know she’s doing a great job, and I trust that all things will work out for the best for all of us. My kids are strong and doing well, but I know they miss my presence as much as I miss theirs. I would appreciate your prayers for all of us.

Peace to all!

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

UPDATE: 15 years later

I just noticed today that this post has gone from 166 views in the first 13 years since first published in 2011 to now over 1,000 views in just the last two years, and this year’s views have already surpassed last year’s. I guess I should give you an update and not leave you hanging! I’m grateful for your readership, and of course, I’m curious about the spike in traffic. If this is circulating through a community of single dads who have found themselves in a similar situation, I’d be happy to interact with you and share more of my experience over the years.

I and my kids have all landed on our feet. I remarried in 2014 to a woman I graduated from high school with, but we were not “sweethearts” at the time, although we did run in some of the same circles. We’re still going strong 12+ years later. My two oldest are both in the Army, with my daughter (middle child) outranking my son (#1; just passed his E7 training). My youngest went straight into business out of high school and has been outearning me for a few years. She’s also given us two grandchildren. We all traveled to Poland this past Christmas to meet my son’s girlfriend’s family and witness their engagement. I’m a men’s group leader in my church and preach at least twice a month at the church I grew up in, where my mom still attends. Life is good, and God has been great!

Comments (2)

August 21, 2011

Doing What I Don’t Desire to Do (Romans 7:13–25)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Evil,Faith, Faithfulness,New Testament,Repentance,Romans,Spiritual Warfare,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 9:57 pm
Tags: Doing what I don't want to do, πράσσω, πράσσω in Romans 7, ποιέω, ποιέω in Romans 7, ἀγαθός vs. καλός, ἀγαθός vs. καλός in Romans 7, κατεργάζομαι, κατεργάζομαι in Romans 7, old man vs. new man, Romans Study 2026

Anyone who has ever read Romans has come across the interesting, seemingly repetitive passage in 7:13–25 (specifically vv. 15–21) where Paul says “I do not do what I want to do.” The TNIV has the word “do” (or a form of it) 24 times in those seven verses, and 6 of those come in verse 15! I would hazard a guess that the verb “do” in English is used almost as much as the “to be” verb. Perhaps a better comparison would be to the use of the verb “have” when forming the perfect tense in English. Just as in those cases “have” does not mean “to possess,” so the modal function of “do” doesn’t necessarily mean “to act”. So we shouldn’t be surprised to find the word used numerous times in any English text. But such a high concentration in the current text suggests that something is up.

When I read through this passage this week, I was surprised to find that Paul used not one, but three words that have been translated as “do” (modal uses aside) in many English Bible versions. In order to set this up, I think it will be beneficial to review those words and see how they impact the meaning of the passage. If we can “undo” the multiple uses of “do” to some extent, we might see a slightly different view of the passage emerge.

The Word Studies

κατεργάζομαι

The first word for “do” Paul uses is κατεργάζομαι (katergazomai, \kat air GAH zaw my\). This word is found 22 times in the New Testament: eleven of those occurrences are in Romans; six are in chapter 7, and five are in the immediate context of this passage. In this context, the word carries the implication of the results of what is “done.” In 7:8, for example, Paul says that “sin…produced in me every kind of covetousness” (TNIV). Later, in verse 13 (which is the beginning of the paragraph in the Greek text), Paul says that sin’s purpose was “to produce death in me” (my translation). If it weren’t for these two uses, I was almost ready to translate the other 4 occurrences in this passage as “motivate” or even “influence,” because that seems to be what the context implies. By “produce”, I mean “accomplish” or “result in” (see, for example, Louw & Nida 13.9).¹ However, I will defer to the primacy factor here and go with the translation “produce” when I give my version of the passage below.

I do want to lay out for you how this word is used in its other four occurrences in this passage so you can compare them for yourselves.

A 15: I know not what I am producing. (Perhaps another way to render this is, “I don’t know what the end result is,” or “I don’t know what I’m accomplishing.”)

B 17: For I myself am no longer producing it, but the sin living in me is. (This is where I get the idea of “motivation” in the word.)

C 18: For my desire is present, but my production is not honorable. (This may be the crux verse. Paul uses a different word for “good” here: καλός instead of ἀγαθός; more on that later.)

B′ 20: (same as 17): For I myself am no longer producing it, but the sin living in me is.

πράσσω

The second word for “do” we come across is πράσσω (prassō, \PRAHSS soh\). Those of you who know something of Greek roots may recognize this as the root from which “practice,” “praxis,” and “pragmatic” are all derived. This word is found 39 times in the NT, with 10 of those occurrences in Romans, and even more in Acts. By a factor of about 7 to 1, the word is used in a negative or neutral context rather than referring to anything good, that is, practicing sin, evil, or wickedness. For example, Paul uses the word twice in Romans 1:32 to describe the practice of those who have given themselves over to their base desires. Christian Maurer, in his article on the word in the TDNT (summarized in the TDNTA, “Little Kittel”), says that the word “denotes the activity rather than the outcome,”² which I contrast with κατεργάζομαι above. The word is used twice in near parallel construction in vv. 15 and 19, but there is one significant difference, and here, the Greek word order is important:

15: οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω (E), ἀλλʼ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ (F). (“For I practice not the thing that I desire, but I do the thing that I hate.”

19: οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω ποιῶ (F′) ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ ὃ οὐ θέλω κακὸν τοῦτο πράσσω (E′). (“For I do not the good thing that I desire, but I practice the evil thing I desire not.” Notice he adds the moral qualifiers in vs. 19 as well.)

(I realize my translations sound like Yoda’s “Do or do not, there is no try,” but I’m trying to be literal and not use “do” more than necessary.) These two phrases serve as a chiastic inclusio for the passage. If you don’t remember what a chiasm is, that’s when a series of items is repeated in reverse order, a common structural feature of the biblical text in both testaments. “I don’t practice the thing I desire…I practice the evil thing I don’t desire”; “I do the thing that I hate…I don’t do the good thing that I desire.” I find it interesting that in vs. 15, he breaks from using the word for “desire” (θέλω thelō, \THEH loh\; used 7 times in this passage) and uses the word for “hate” (μισέω miseō, \miss EH oh\), telegraphing how he feels about doing the thing he doesn’t desire to do (compare with the first phrase of vs. 16).

ποιέω

The Greek word most frequently used for “do” or “make” in the NT (568 times) is the third word we encounter here: ποιέω (poieō, \poi EH oh\). This word is found five times in this passage. Verses 15, 16, and 20 are nearly parallel: “I do the thing that I hate. If I do the thing that I do not desire….” Verse 19 is slightly different, as already seen above. Verse 21 is the only place in this passage where this word is connected with doing something “honorable,” but its use throughout the NT is widely varied as you might guess. There is nothing unusual about the translation of the word in this passage, so in my translation of the passage, I will render it as “do”.

ἀγαθός and καλός

One final bit of word study should be added to this discussion as well. Paul goes back and forth between using the typical Greek word for morally good (ἀγαθός agathos \ah gah THAWSS\) and the typical Greek word for aesthetically good (καλός kalos \kah LOSS\). There is some overlap of meaning between the two words (both words are contrasted with κακός kakos “evil”, the former in vs. 19, the latter in vs. 21), but καλός tends to be slightly more abstract and doesn’t have quite the moral load that ἀγαθός does. For the purposes of my translation, where ἀγαθός is used, I will use “good,” but where καλός is used, I will use “honorable.”

My Translation

To this point, I’ve given very stiff, literal translations of the Greek text, and I’m guessing some of you who don’t have a Greek background are scratching your heads. But I want to try to give a dynamic equivalence (which will probably sound more like something out of The Message) of this passage, focusing on vv. 15–21. So here it goes:

I don’t understand what this battle between good and evil is going to produce in me in the end or why I’m even going through it. For I don’t practice what I really want to do: please God. Instead, I just blindly do the thing I hate. And if I blindly do what I really don’t want to do, I agree with the law that it is honorable in pointing out the sinfulness of my thoughtless deed. But now it’s no longer I myself producing the action I didn’t want to do, but it’s the unwelcome, indwelling sin that’s doing it. For I know that good doesn’t dwell in me, that is, in my sinful, fleshly nature; my desire to do a good thing is there in my mind, but my sinful, fleshly nature produces nothing honorable. I don’t do the good thing I want to do; instead, I practice the evil thing I really don’t want to do. If I blindly do what I don’t really want to do, it’s no longer I myself producing the action I didn’t want to do, but it’s the unwelcome, indwelling sin that’s doing it. Consequently, I find the law that evil is present with me when I desire to do what is honorable.

Paul goes on to talk about how his mind and inner man (are they one and the same?) are sold-out to God, but his sinful, fleshly nature still has a strong pull on him. He, like the rest of us, understands the daily struggle with sin. But here’s the kicker: even though this passage is written in the first person, Paul really isn’t speaking of himself here. The “I” of the passage must be discerned from vs. 14, where Paul says “I am unspiritual/fleshly.” He’s really putting on a persona of “everyman” or a man who still finds himself enslaved to sin or trying to be justified by the law. Craig Keener, in his IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, says that Paul is using a rhetorical method here known as “diatribe style,” which employs a fictitious speaker (“I”) and poses numerous rhetorical questions.³ He’s not writing about himself, at least not in the present. He could, however, be referring to his own struggle following the law prior to his conversion.

The reality is, if we have the Holy Spirit, we’ve put to death the persona that Paul has put on here. In chapter 6, Paul says we died with Christ in immersion (baptism) and were raised up with him in newness of life, so how can we live any longer in sin? The very first verse of chapter 8 can’t be ignored either, because it falls right on the heels of this section: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” And the rest of chapter 8 bears out how God has once and for all dealt with the sinful nature that wars against our desire to do good. The Holy Spirit, the one who empowers us to live victoriously over sin, will not leave us wanting in the battle with sin, “because through Christ Jesus, the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2, TNIV).

Well, I think that’s enough for now. I’ve spent all day on this, so it looks like I’m going to have to start writing Saturday night if I want to get these published on Sunday mornings. Peace to you. Have a great week!

^[1] Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. 1996. In Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., 1:150. New York: United Bible Societies.

^[2] Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley. 1985. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, 927. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

^[3] Keener, Craig S. 1993. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Scott Stocking

Comments (3)

« Previous Page — Next Page »

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

January 12, 2019

The Blood of Christ

The Waters of Immersion

United with Christ’s Death (Romans 6:5a)

United in Christ’s Resurrection (Romans 6:5b)

Living Sacrifice

Conclusion

March 31, 2012

Good Morning?

Good Wife?

Good Men?

March 23, 2012

October 12, 2011

The Overall Structure of Ephesians

Power, Riches, and Hope.

Walter Wink and Language of Power in the New Testament

Violence and the Powers

Prayer, the Church, and the Powers

Some Examples, Positive and Negative

Conclusion

September 18, 2011

August 21, 2011

The Word Studies

κατεργάζομαι

πράσσω

ποιέω

ἀγαθός and καλός

My Translation

Search for posts.

Latest Posts

Pages and Class Materials

Find posts in these categories.

Follow Blog via Email