Sunday Morning Greek Blog

March 6, 2011

Feeding, Walking, and Transfiguring

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Mark Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 2:02 pm

Mark’s versions of the feedings of the 5000 men plus women and children (Mark 6:30–44) and 4000 men plus women and children (Mark 8:1–10) proved to have some interesting “grist for my mill,” as one of my college professors used to say. Mark has a couple interesting features not found in Matthew’s account. One minor difference I noted is that in Mark 6:39, Jesus commands the crowd to sit down on the “green grass” (χλωρος χόρτος chlōros chortos), while Matthew just has them sitting down on the grass (in Mark 8, they sit on the ground, γή gē). The disciples make a point that they are in a “wilderness” or “remote place” (ἔρημος ὁ τόπος erēmos ho topos). Often, we may have an image of the region as a dry desert, but not so here. This seemed to be a very verdant place where it would have been quite comfortable to sit for some time.

The other implication here is that while Jesus was teaching, the crowd apparently was standing. Otherwise, why would he instruct them to sit down? But this command is qualified by another part of the story unique to Mark: in 6:38–39, Jesus instructs the crowd to sit down in “groups [by] groups,” and they sat down in “blocks [by] blocks]” of fifty and one hundred each. Those of you who know the Exodus story might recognize that this is how Jethro instructed his son-in-law Moses to divide the responsibility of judging the people in Exodus 18. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. How do you feed a hungry crowd? One group at a time. Jesus was reiterating Moses’ crowd management philosophy.

Not only does Mark’s account look back to the Exodus story, but it also looks forward to the Last Supper (as all of the Gospel accounts of the feeding of the masses do). In chapter 6, Jesus blesses (ευλογέω eulogeō) and breaks in pieces (κατακλάω kataklaō) the bread. In chapter 8, Jesus gives thanks for (εὐχαριστεω eucharisteō) and breaks (κλάω klaō) the bread. In Mark 14:22–23, Jesus blesses and breaks the bread and gives thanks for the cup.

If you’ve been going to church for a while and have been paying attention to the preacher, you may have already heard this next feature of the story, common to all Gospel accounts. The baskets used to collect the leftovers are not the same in each story. In the feeding of the 5000, the twelve baskets are more like lunch or grocery baskets (κοφίνος kophinos), while in Mark 8, the seven baskets there are large enough to hold a man (see Acts 9:25). Scholars are fairly certain that the seven larger baskets held more than the twelve smaller baskets. Later, in 8:19–21, after talking about the yeast of the Pharisees, Jesus queries his disciples about the two feeding events: The number of baskets (twelve and seven) may be as significant as the bountiful leftovers. Both numbers are used frequently in the Bible for symbolism: twelve for the number of tribes of Israel and seven for a number of completeness or perfection. After the disciples answer the questions about the number of baskets successfully (again, significant that the numbers stick in their minds), Jesus asks, “Do you still not understand?” What point is he getting across? God’s Word was not meant to be understood by a select few Phrarisees! God’s Word is practical and it satisfies (χορτάζω chortazō; note the similarity of this to the word for “grass”)! God provides! (I think my resistance to tithing at this point in my life may have just gone out the window. I need to pause and reflect on that.)

Okay, done reflecting; still unsettled, but not as much. I must move on from the feeding of the masses, because time always seems to slip away from me while I’m writing this.

By way of transition, I find it interesting, although not surprising for Mark (see earlier posts), that the disciples put out to sea after each of the feeding events. In the first story, Jesus sends his disciples out by themselves, this after the terrifying event of the healing of the Gerasene demoniac, after which the disciples were apparently afraid to go back out on the sea. In Mark 6, we have the story of Jesus walking to them on the water (see another earlier post). Mark is filled with other scary demoniac stories as well, and I think this whole section here (Mark 5–9 at least) is not just about showing Jesus’ power, but about showing Jesus’ need to get away from the crowd for a while. That may be why sailing back and forth across the lake was so popular with Jesus. He could just hang out, maybe cast a line or a net over the side and do some fishing. (Do you suppose Jesus had a bumper sticker on his boat that said, “I’d rather be fishing”?)

Getting away from the crowd had its ultimate expression in the transfiguration story (Mark 9:2–13). Jesus took his “inner circle” (Peter, James, and John) with him up to a mountain, where his glory was revealed, and where he also spoke to Moses and Elijah. Now I don’t know how I would have reacted, but I’d like to think I would have reacted differently than Peter. Here are Moses and Elijah, two of the greatest figures in Jewish history, talking to Jesus, and Peter wants to get out his hammer and nails and make a racket building booths! If I had been there, I think I would have wanted to listen in on the conversation! The story has some connection to Exodus 34:29–35, the radiant face of Moses, which is probably why Peter wanted to build a shelter: Moses was the only one permitted to see the glory of God, and that indirectly, in the innermost part of the tabernacle.

But the story also comes right before the strongest demon that Jesus had yet to face and is a turning point as Mark begins the last half of his Gospel leading up to the parousia. When Jesus returns from the mountain (9:15), he finds his disciples “discussing” (Peter, James, and John do the same kind of “discussing” in 9:10 about Jesus’ prediction that he would rise from the dead; the word is unique to Mark and Luke-Acts) with the Pharisees about a deaf-mute demoniac. The disciples were not strong enough to cast out the demon, and when they later ask why they could not, Jesus tells them that that kind can only come out by prayer. It is interesting, though, that nowhere in the story do we have a direct reference to Jesus praying before he casts out the demon. But Jesus had also just come down from the Mount of Transfiguration, and the people were “astonished” (ἐκθαμβέω ekthambeō, a word found only in Mark—here, of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, and twice in Mark 16 of the women who found the tomb empty) to see him. I take from that that Jesus may have still been glowing a bit, just as Moses did after he left the presence of God. Jesus was fully prepared to take on Satan’s strongest minions. I don’t think it is accidental or coincidental that Mark places these two stories side by side.

Well, that wraps up the post for this morning. Church time approaches, and I have to put the finishing touches on my PowerPoint for my Ephesians Sunday school class. Peace to all!

Scott Stocking

February 27, 2011

Of Crowds, Thorns, and Broadcasting God’s Word

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Mark Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 2:18 pm

Mark is the shortest of all the Gospels, but in the first five chapters, I have found much to unpack. Mark has many repeated exegetically significant words. I have already mentioned the use of εὐθὺς (euthys ‘immediately’) in a previous blog entry, and that occurs another four times in Mark 4:1–20, which I will discuss below.

Another pattern of repeated words I have seen has to do with Jesus’ audience and apparently favorite place of ministry. The word “crowd” (ὄχλος ochlos) appears 38 times, evenly distributed, in the book of Mark. In Mark 1–5, which I read this week, it occurs 13 times. Along with that, the words “sea” or “lake” (θάλασσα thalassa) occurs 19 times in 15 verses in Mark, with 13 occurrences in Mark 1–5; the word “boat” (πλοῖον ploion) appears 17 times in 15 verses in Mark, with 10 occurrences in Mark 1–5. Maybe, just maybe, God is calling me to a seaside ministry. NOT!

I spent much of my ministry career with smaller congregations. I served a couple congregations that had been stuck in the 150–200 range. But most of the congregations I served for any length of time were well under 50. Small may be cozy, comfortable, and easy to manage, but small is not what Jesus was after when he went out to preach. Small is fine for teaching (Jesus often went off with his disciples alone to teach them more thoroughly (e.g., Mark 4:10ff), but he wanted to get God’s word out to as many people as possible.

We’ve been reading The Screwtape Letters in Wednesday night class at my congregation. In chapter VII, Screwtape says this about small churches to his nephew Wormwood: “We [the demons] want the church to be small not only that fewer men may know the Enemy [God] but also that those who do may acquire the uneasy intensity and the defensive self-righteousness of a secret society or a clique.” How many times have I heard that criticism of smaller churches from the world?!?

Before moving back to Omaha, I spent two years in a growing, vibrant congregation whose attendance was about one-third the population of the town. We drove 30 miles to get there, because it was the best thing going in the area for one, and I had known the pastor for several years as well (it was my ex-wife’s home church).

When I moved back to Omaha, I jumped right in to my former congregation. When I attended there in the 80s, attendance was hovering at about 200. When I came back last September, I discovered that my little Timothy church had become a megachurch, averaging 1200 in three services in a new building, and they’re still bursting at the seams (with a new addition on the way). I have experienced first-hand the benefit of being part of the “crowd.” I am seeing lives changed (my own included) daily because a crowded congregation has virtually unlimited resources to get things done and make a powerful impact on its community.

The crowd is great, and the crowd is necessary, but I have also been able to experience the intimacy (without the cliquishness) of a small group setting. I have a wonderful small group that is growing, and I’m part of a great “Men’s Fraternity” group that is helping me reach new levels of spiritual maturity I never thought possible for myself. What a joy to be part of a vibrant community promoting God’s kingdom!

The Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1–20)

One of the “crowd/intimate” stories is the Parable of the Sower and Soils in Mark 4:1–20. Jesus tells the story of the farmer who “broadcasts” his seed (as opposed to carefully planting it in rows) onto four different types of soil: the hard-trodden path, the rocky ground, the thorns, and good, fertile soil.

I find in this passage a description of spiritual warfare, especially as Mark relates it. I mentioned above that the word εὐθύς occurs 4 of 41 times in Mark in this pericope. Its first occurrence is in vs. 5, where Jesus says the seed (i.e., God’s Word) that landed in rocky soil “immediately” dries up, because it had no root. However, when Jesus explains the parable further to his disciples, he uses the word three times in vv. 15–17. Satan “immediately” snatches the Word from the hardened path. By contrast, the person with rocky soil receives the Word “immediately” with joy, but because it has no root in that person’s life, the first sign of trouble causes that person to “immediately” fall away.

The spiritual battle is fierce here: Satan wastes no time trying to choke out the Word of God from our lives. But notice the progression: the greater the chance of the seed getting to some soil, the greater the effort needed to choke out or uproot God’s Word. Notice that in three of the four soils, God’s word starts to take root. But the degree of cultivation determines how well the root takes and how successful its growth will be. Notice that even among the thorns, God’s Word grows, but because of the thorns, it cannot bear fruit.

I think many of us can say that our lives have been represented by each of these types of soils at one point or another. But hopefully we’ve had someone else there to “break up the fallow ground” (Hosea 10:12), clear away the rocks, remove the thorns, and prepare us for not only receiving God’s Word with joy, but allowing it to extend deep roots into our lives, “like a tree planted by streams of water” (Psalm 1:3).

To tie this entry together, let me conclude with this: A large congregation can cast a wide net, bringing in people of all types of soil. But it also has the “saintpower” to counteract the enemy who would try to snatch away God’s Word before it has a chance to take root in someone’s life. The church should be “broadcasting” God’s Word to as many as possible, but we also need the intimacy of close relationships to make sure the Word takes root deeply and produces much fruit.

February 21, 2011

Mark 1: More on “For the Forgiveness of Sins”

Filed under: Acts,Baptism of Jesus,Biblical Studies,Christology,Christology,forgiveness,Greek,Immersion/Baptism,Leviticus,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Repentance — Scott Stocking @ 6:36 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

February 20, 2011

 It seems odd that just a little more than 1/8th of the year is already gone, but I only just finished the first book of the NT. In fact, according to my reading plan, I will be in the Gospels until almost the end of June, and then I won’t be done with Acts until the middle of August. Some of you have sent some special requests, and I will address those as I’m able. School kicks into full gear this week for me. I’m teaching two online classes now, followed by one online class after that.

 (Just in case you missed it, I had a bonus blog entry last Thursday on the “sleeping saints.” Please check it out when you have time.)

 I spent the last two days poring over Mark 1. One of the first things I noticed is how, when Mark begins the story with Jesus’ immersion by John the Immersing One ([ὁ] βαπτίζων, ho baptizōn, a participle verb form), he (through divine inspiration???) uses some of the very language that Matthew used at the end of his story with Jesus.

 Last week’s entry highlighted the phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (eis aphesin hamartiōn ‘into the forgiveness of sins’) and its use in both Matthew 26:28 in connection with the blood of Jesus and Acts 2:38 in connection with repenting and being immersed. Peter did not pull that connection out of his exegetical magic hat.

 Mark 1:4 uses the same phrase in connection with John’s immersion ministry. Mark says that John was “preaching an immersion of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” In the next verse, Mark says that people were coming to John to be immersed in the Jordan “confessing their sins.” Then in verse 8, Mark makes a statement that has been one of the sources of the debate surrounding the efficacy and signification of immersion. John the Immersing One says, “I am immersing you in water, but he [Jesus] will immerse you in the Holy Spirit.”

I use the word “but” there, because that is how most English translations render it. But this “but” (δε de in Greek) is considered to be a “weak” conjunction. It is not as powerful as καί (kai ‘and’, ‘also’), but when it can be used as a disjunctive, it is not as powerful as ἀλλά (alla ‘but’). The latter usually indicates a complete or emphatic break. But δε is often used to connect actions that happen in sequence. The primary example of this is Matthew’s use of  δε in his opening genealogy: “Abraham was the father of Isaac; then Isaac was the father of Jacob” and so on.

So when Mark records John using δε with respect to the signification of how Jesus will “immerse” us, he is not saying that his own “baptism of repentance” will be null and void once Jesus starts immersing. In some respects, John could be making a play on words here. But John (and Mark) could also be looking forward to Acts 2:38. (We shouldn’t ignore the fact that Peter and Mark were close companions in the early days of the church, so there is most likely some of that influence represented here, but Luke’s objectivity in Acts makes any possibility of collusion for Mark to redact John’s words to support Peter’s message or to match Matthew’s wording unlikely.)

The bottom-line translation or interpretation here is this: John says, “I am immersing you in water, then he [Jesus, when he immerses you] will immerse you in the Holy Spirit.” John 4:1–2 indicates that Jesus’ disciples continued John’s immersion ministry, although Jesus himself apparently never immersed anyone in water. Additionally, John indicates later in his Gospel that Jesus will send the Holy Spirit after his death, so Mark’s words indeed do look forward to Peter’s declaration in Acts 2:38.

Other notes on Mark 1.

The word εὐθὺς (euthys ‘immediately’) occurs 11 times in chapter 1 and 41 times in the entire Gospel. One of the early lessons I learned in seminary was the urgency with which Mark presented the good news: Jesus couldn’t wait to get the word out.

Jesus casts out (ἐκβαλλω ekballō) many demons in Mark 1. But what I found interesting is that this same word describes what the Holy Spirit did to Jesus when he “sent him out” into the wilderness to be tempted (vs. 12). Mark also uses that word later in the chapter when Jesus “sent away” the cleansed leper and warned him not to speak. The point is that the word has diverse usage: it’s not only used to cast off evil things or entities. But it is a little stronger than simply using the more common words for “come” or “go.”

One last point regarding the cleansing of the leper: it is significant, I think, that the word for “cleanse” (καθαρίζω katharizō) is used rather than the word for “heal” (θεραπεύω therapeuō) in Mark 1:40-45. Healing would have only involved the physical or even emotional scars or wounds. But cleansing took healing to a whole new level. Jesus not only healed the leper, but he made the leper socially acceptable by removing the stigma of his uncleanness. (See Leviticus 14:1–32 where Moses describes the procedure for making an offering for being cleansed of leprosy.)

As we go about our respective ministries, may we offer that same cleansing and acceptance to those who need the restorative power of the good news of Jesus.

Let the Sleeping Saints Arise!

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 6:15 pm

From February 17, 2011.

Just a quick note this morning on a great bit of verbal artistry in Matthew 27:52. The TNIV renders the passage rather blandly, in spite of the miraculous event it records: “The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.” In the Greek, the phrase reads like this: πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν (polla sōmata tōn kekoimēmenōn hagiōn ēgerthēsan), which literally reads, “Many bodies of the sleeping saints were resurrected.” (I think I may have even topped Eugene Peterson’s [The Message] translation of the passage.)

When I read that, I had to stop and revel in the profundity of that phrase. Many of you probably know that the concept of sleeping (here, the verb κοιμάω koimaō ‘sleep’) in the NT is a euphemism for death. And in fact, the people in Matthew 27:52 had been dead, “sleeping” in their tombs. I don’t recall ever seeing that part of the resurrection story depicted in movies about the crucifixion (it’s been a while since I’ve watched any of them, though). This is a phenomenal miracle that gets overlooked by many in light of the admittedly greater importance of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

But here’s the rub. What signification (see my use of that word in my previous note) does the death of Jesus have for you? At the risk of trivializing the miracle of that crucifixion day, I have a question for you (and myself): Are you a “sleeping saint”? Do I need to carry this analogy any further? I leave you to your own musings on this subject.

I’d love to write more, but it’s time to get ready for work. I’d love to hear your comments.

εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (eis aphesin hamartiōn, ‘for the forgiveness of sins’)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Communion/Eucharist,Greek,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 6:09 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

From February 13, 2011.

For centuries, scholars have debated the significance of Jesus’ words in the Gospels’ descriptions of the Lord’s Table, or what other traditions call “communion” or “eucharist.” The four short verses in Matthew have quite a bit to unpack, and I will not be able to do them justice here, but I do want to highlight a few things. The parallel passages are Matthew 26:26–30, Mark 14:22–26; Luke 22:15–20; John 13 has a very different account of that last night with the disciples.

First, Jesus treats the bread and cup differently, at least in Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts. Both of those Gospel writers say that Jesus “blessed” (εὐλογέω, eulogeō) the bread (reminiscent of Matthew 14:19, the feeding of the 5,000), but he “gave thanks” (εὐχαριστέω, eucharisteō) for the cup. Luke says in his account that Jesus “gave thanks” for both.

Second, Jesus does break the bread when he blesses it, and he does say, “This is my body,” but nowhere in any Gospel account does he say, “This is my body, broken for you.” That final phrase is found in some manuscripts (MSS) of the account in 1 Corinthians 11:24, but those MSS do not carry the same historic or epigraphic weight as those that do not have the phrase, so you will not find it in most contemporary English Bibles.

Third, when Jesus takes the cup, Matthew and Luke (Paul follows Luke in 1 Corinthians) have slightly different versions of what Jesus said, but not necessarily contradictory. Matthew records Jesus’ words as, “This is my blood of the covenant.” But that could be rendered a couple different ways depending on how one understands the “my” (μου, mou) in that verse.

In Matthew 16:18, when Jesus says, “I will build my church,” the μου comes before the Greek word translated “church.” So it is possible to render Matthew 26:28 similarly: “This is the blood of my covenant.” In Greek grammar, μου, as genitive pronoun, could also indicate source: “This is the blood from me of the covenant,” anticipating his very next words after that, “which is poured out for many.” However, I think the best explanation, though, is that μου comes between “blood” and “covenant” because it applies to both: “This is my blood of my covenant.”

Luke’s (and Paul’s parallel) account is slightly different, perhaps reflecting the liturgy that had developed among the congregations at the time: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The significance here is that Luke and Paul both make the connection between the covenant and the blood, just as Matthew does.

But finally, I think the most significant aspect of this passage, particularly in Matthew’s account, is the final phrase in Matthew 26:28: εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (eis aphesin hamartiōn, ‘for the forgiveness of sins’). The almost identical phrase is found in Acts 2:38, except it adds the definite article with “sins” along with the possessive pronoun “your”: “Repent, and let each one of you be immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”

The connection between immersion and forgiveness has been downplayed by many. My own background, Independent Christian Church/Church of Christ, has, I think, made the best sense of this verse: The preposition εἰς generally implies motion “into” some place or state of being. Bringing Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3:21 into the mix, I believe we get the full counsel of Scripture on this topic. Here’s the logic as I see it:

  1. John immersed with water for repentance, and Jesus was obedient to that immersion (Matthew 3:11–17).
  2. Jesus says his blood is poured out “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28);
  3. Peter commands the crowd, “Repent and let each one of you be immersed for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38; ties together John’s immersion philosophy and Jesus’ blood);
  4. Paul makes the connection between immersion and the death of Jesus, i.e., the pouring out of his blood at the cross; the water is important as a “signification” of burial (Romans 6:1–10);
  5. Peter says that immersion saves, but by the power of the resurrection, not by the power of the water; the water is still important, because without it, you can’t be immersed (1 Peter 3:21).

So there seems to be trend as you read from Matthew to Revelation to heighten increasingly the significance of immersion. In fact, immersion is a “signification,” not just a symbol, of forgiveness and salvation, not just an optional exercise or an outward show. Everything about immersion in the Scriptures indicates that some inward transformation is occurring. At the very least, it is commanded, so it can’t be optional, regardless of what else you may think of immersion. On the other hand, when the people in Acts understood the significance of immersion, they didn’t hesitate to get it done (e.g., Acts 8:36–38, 9:16, et passim). That should suggest something about how it was presented in the early days of the church.

Some scholars have tried to argue that the phrase in Acts 2:38 should be understood “in reference to the forgiveness of your sins,” implying that immersion is a response to forgiveness already received. I would like to know how those scholars would apply that translation to Matthew 26:28. Do they really want to say Jesus’ shed blood was only “in reference to the forgiveness of sins”? I don’t think even the most stubborn evangelical scholars would want to downplay the blood of Christ to that extent.

Peace!

For further reference, see sense 2 of the meaning of “signification” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.

Careful Christianity (Matthew 23:13-36)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Passion — Scott Stocking @ 5:58 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

From February 6, 2011.

Woe is I is the title of a popular grammar book that deals in a light-hearted manner with the complexities of the English language. More often than not, “woe” is a self-proclamation of the troubles (real or exaggerated) we face in daily life.

But in Matthew 23:13–36, when Jesus pronounced “Woe!” (οὐαὶ, ouai ooh-EYE!) on hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, he was not making a playful jest with them. You can certainly hear the “sound of ultimate suffering” (to quote Inigo Montoya) when you say that word with all the pathos you can muster. His pronouncement of woe was about the severest form of judgment that could be pronounced, short of the ἀνάθεμα (anathema ‘curse’) of 1 Cor 16:22. In my UBS3 dictionary, the translation is given as “1. interjection how horrible it will be! 2. noun horror, disaster, calamity.”

The reason for the woe, however, is what I want to focus on this morning. Other than the repetition of the “woe” phrase, another prominent word appears three times in this text: ἀφίημι (aphiēmi ). The word is a workhorse in the Greek New Testament, appearing 112 times, but having a variety of loosely related meanings. The three basic English meanings/translations of the word are “forgive,” “leave/left,” and “allow” or “let.” Other derived meanings or translations  are “cancel,” “tolerate,” “neglect,” or even “divorce” (1 Cor 7:11–13 would read very differently if English translation had “neglect” instead of “divorce” there!).

The TNIV translates the word as “neglect” twice in Matthew 23:23. “You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.” The little things are important, but we have bigger fish to fry as well. Later, in 23:38 as Jesus closes out the curse, he warns the hypocrites “Your wilderness house is neglected by you” (my translation).

The idea of “neglect” came home to me while reading through Deuteronomy last year. More than once in that book, Moses warned the Israelites to “be careful.” Jesus warns the hypocrites that they are majoring in the minors while neglecting the more important commands of God. In other words, they’re being careful about the wrong things. Herein is a call to be intentionally Christian: don’t be passive about your faith or relationships; don’t think the sins (big or little) that no one sees don’t matter. Don’t neglect your faith.

I say this at the risk of being accused as a legalist. I’m not a legalist, though, at least not about the small things. I have, however, in the last few years come to see the absolute importance of justice, mercy, and faithfulness for the Christian community. These rank right up there with faith, hope, and love, and are intertwined with them to boot. What I am saying is that we should evaluate our priorities and see if we have the mind of Christ. His ministry was one of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. I recently listened to a message by Ravi Zacharias entitled “What Happened after God’s Funeral?” He laments the fact that, in modern entertainment, we tend to laugh at sin rather than be offended by it. I have a hard time seeing how that fits in with the big three. Maybe I’m just a stick in the mud, but Charlie Sheen’s recent troubles bring this truth home quite clearly. How many of us (myself included) have laughed at his exploits on Two and a Half Men, only to discover that the show is a not-so-fictional biography of his real-life exploits?

Have we neglected God’s righteousness in favor of entertainment? Have we neglected our faith to the point that we have trouble distinguishing good from evil any more, and worse, to the point of not being able to respond appropriately in Christian love? Let us go forward in love, bearing a witness of integrity for Christ.

He has shown all you people what is good.

And what does the Lord require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy

and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

Entering Heaven Difficultly (Matthew 19)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ephesians,Eschatology,Greek,Luke Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 5:18 pm
Tags: , , , ,

January 30, 2011

It seems like Sunday is the only time I have to blog on reading through the Greek New Testament, so I’ll just call this the Sunday Morning Greek Blog.

I could say much about Jesus’ discussion of divorce in the first part of Matthew 19, but I think I’ll wait until my own divorce is finalized and well behind me.

However, I did discover something interesting today about Jesus’ encounter with the rich young man in the last part of Matthew 19. Now I am neither rich nor young, but having landed a new job that pays better than any job I’ve had before, I should probably start paying better attention to teachings about wealth.

The thing that struck me most about my reading today was how the Greek text records Jesus’ answer to his disciples about how difficult it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. The English translations usually say something like, “It is difficult for a rich man/person to enter the kingdom of heaven.” This makes it sound like the main verb is “to be difficult” and “to enter” is an infinitive that completes the thought of the main verb.

But this is not the way it is written in Greek. The actual phrase in Greek (for my Greek geek friends) is πλούσιος δυσκόλως εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, which translated literally would read “[a] rich one difficultly will enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The main verb here is the verb εἰσερχόμαι (“I enter”), which is used as a future tense form here (εἰσελεύσεται, “[he/she] will enter”). The word for “difficultly” (δυσκόλως) sounds a bit awkward for English, but I use it here to emphasize that the word is an adverb, which means it modifies or describes the action of the verb. (Remember “Lolly, Lolly, Lolly, get your adverbs here!)

Jesus says the rich “will enter the kingdom of heaven” (this is not to say that being rich is the only or any kind of qualification for entering the kingdom of heaven!), but they will do so with difficulty. Jesus doesn’t condemn wealth here; he just wants to make sure we have the proper attitude toward wealth. In vs. 24, when he says it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (a real sewing needle, not a narrow gate as some have tried to purport) than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven, his disciples ask, “Who then can be saved?” Think about that for a minute. Jesus tells them the rich enter with great difficulty, then they ask “Who then can be saved?” as if they think the nonrich can’t be saved!

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but that seems to reveal to me an attitude about prosperity in that day. Jesus did much of his ministry among the poor and oppressed, but he did not shy away from confronting (or in this case, reaching out to) the prosperous either. Could it be that the masses flocked to Jesus because the poor thought they had no hope for eternity? Even after all this time with Jesus, did the disciples still think salvation was something only for the prosperous?

Salvation is for all, rich or poor. Prosperity teachers need to sit up and take note here: When you tell your flock that God can make them rich, you might want to include this passage so they know the trouble they’re in for!

Again, this is not to say wealth is bad. I like Ephesians 4:28: “Those who have been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.” Luke 16:9 is even more compelling: “Use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” Wealth is a blessing, and if we use it to bless others, I think we discover a new type of neighborly love.

Scott Stocking, M.Div.

Walking on Water (Matthew 14:29)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,Miracles,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 5:10 pm
Tags: , ,

From January 23, 2011.

This note may be more appealing to my Greek-geek friends (sadly, there are so few of us), but those of you who are tagged may appreciate an insight into textual criticism and some of the considerations that go into trying to decide what the original text of Scripture was when two or more later copies have “variant” readings. Many things are considered in deciding between two or more variant readings, but in a nutshell, the top three considerations are as follows:

  1.  The more difficult reading is preferred (i.e., the one that presents the most problems theologically or historically, because later copyists tended to simplify a text rather than make it more difficult to understand).
  2. The shorter reading is preferred (this may seem to contradict the previous one, but “simplifying” a text may have involved the copyist adding an extra word or two to make the text make sense in his mind).
  3. The dissonant reading is preferred (i.e., the reading that varies from other parallel accounts; the tendency was to bring all accounts of a story into harmony).

Having said all that, I came across an interesting variant in Matthew 14:29 today. It’s not one that would force a major paradigm shift for most, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

The KJV renders the passage, “And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.”

The TNIV has, “‘Come,’ he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.”

At issue are the words in italics. The KJV states that Peter’s purpose (infinitive form) for walking on the water was to go to Jesus without implying that he completed the action, while the TNIV says Peter actually went (completed action form) to/toward Jesus and arrived at or very near his location on the water.

Ἐλθείν  (/el-THAIN/, infinitive meaning “to come” and often expressing purpose) is a well attested variant here. The difference in translation would be this: (a la TNIV, ἦλθεν /AIL-then/) “And he came to/toward” vs. (a la KJV) “in order to come to/toward” (I used my own translations here to emphasize the difference).

In the accepted reading (UBS4/NA27, the foundational Greek text for most modern Bible versions like the TNIV, and which in this verse follows the B text, Codex Vaticanus), depending on how the preposition is translated, Peter actually makes progress on the sea (or “water” as Matthew records Peter’s words) and gets close enough to Jesus for Jesus to reach out and save him.

The variant (textus receptus, which is the foundational Greek text for the KJV) only suggests Peter’s purpose for getting out onto the water, but it says nothing about his progress. Mark and John do not mention Peter’s attempt in the parallel accounts. The B reading is certainly more difficult, but the TR (which follows a correction of א, Codex Sinaitcus) reading is shorter, but in making it shorter, it also simplifies the more difficult concept that Peter walked on water just like Jesus. (The original א text has both Ἐλθείν and ἦλθεν.)

My heart would like to think that Peter actually did make some progress; the weight of the textual evidence in favor of the TR reading gives me pause, but the B reading is parallel to the verb for “walk” in the passage (also the same word used of Jesus walking on the water), so I’d have side with that. Peter does walk on the water, so he does make some progress toward Jesus, and perhaps even makes it all the way to Jesus before he begins to sink.

The bottom line is (and if you understood none of what I wrote above, please get this!), get out of the boat and come to Jesus. We may even get very close to Jesus and still find we lack faith, but all we need to do is cry out, and he will save us from the storms of life.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

Scott Stocking, M.Div.

How to Calm a Great Storm (Matthew 8)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Hope,Life of Christ,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,Miracles,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 4:59 pm
Tags: , , ,

From January 16, 2011

Just few observations on some things I noticed in Matthew 8 earlier in the week.

 The “great storm” (σεισμός μέγας, seismos megas) of vs. 24 becomes a “great calm” (γαλήνη μεγάλη, galēnē megalē) in vs. 26 after Jesus rebukes the wind. The dynamically equivalent TNIV renderings of “furious storm” and “completely calm” for these two phrases are adequate, but they don’t reveal to the English-speaking reader that the same word was used to describe both storm and calm.

 Another thing I found interesting is that the story (pericope for my theologically minded friends) of the calming of the storm at sea is juxtaposed to the healing of the demon-possessed Gadarenes in 8:28-34. In the calming of the sea story, The disciples are afraid, and perhaps rightly so, that their lives are in danger in the storm. But Jesus’ presence should have strengthened them: that’s why he “says” to them (it is significant, I think, that he does not “rebuke” them as he does the storm) that they have “little-faith” (one word in Greek) and are “cowards.”

 Contrast that with the fate of the herd of pigs, who, when possessed by the demons cast out of the Gadarenes, ran off into the sea and drowned. The sea was already a place of superstition, but now the disciples had witnessed a herd of unclean animals drown in the sea. How did this affect them?

 In 9:1, (contrast 8:23), Matthew says that only Jesus got back into the boat and crossed back to Capernaum. There is no mention of the disciples getting in the boat with him this time. Even after witnessing Jesus calm the storm at sea, they were still (evidently) skittish about getting back in the boat with Jesus. In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 5), the healed demoniac does want to get in the boat with Jesus when he crosses over, but there is still no indication that the disciples did, although they had apparently caught up to him by Mark 5:31 (see also Luke 8 where the story follows a similar pattern to Mark’s account).

 How many of us have seen the great works of God yet are still afraid to go forward in faith? I know I’ve been cowardly a time or two (okay, many times), but I pray that each of us would have the strength, faith, and courage to go forward and to share boldly the good news of Jesus with those around us.

Peace!

Matthew 7: Narrow Gates and Good Fruit

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Eschatology,Evangelism,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Repentance — Scott Stocking @ 4:55 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

From January 9, 2011.

Wow, a great morning in Matthew 7. Here are just a few things I discovered.

Jesus speaks of “the narrow gate” (τῆς στενῆς πύλης, tēs stenēs pulēs) in Matthew 7:13-14. Verse 14 is where things get interesting, however. Jesus uses the same words to describe the gate in vs. 14, but the NIV, TNIV, and, surprisingly, the NAS all cloud the issue here. Additionally, those three versions shift the translation “narrow” to a different word (a verb), θλίβω (thlibō), in vs. 14. That word means “to be hard pressed or persecuted.” I think the ESV, which tends to be more literal, gets closer to the sense: <span>”Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” “Hard” still seems a bit too soft, however (note the irony), but I suppose if the translators had said, “the way that leads to life is persecuted,” we would be less inclined to read our Bibles.

The next passage about the tree and its fruit has some interesting features as well. The NIV, TNIV, and NAS all repeat the words “good” and “bad” as if Jesus spoke the same Greek/Aramaic words for their respective occurrences. But when Jesus speaks of the “good” tree, he uses the word ἀγαθός (agathos), which typically, but not always, means “good” with moral implications in the NT. The word used to describe the “good” fruit is καλός (kalos), which can have a moral sense to it, but also has aesthetic implications as well (e.g., “beautiful”). I would say a good translation of the first part of vs. 17 is, “The tree that has been properly tended produces healthy, delicious fruit.”

The second part of that verse has similar issues with the word “bad.” Of the tree, Jesus uses the word σαπρός (sapros), which implies “rotten” or “unwholesome” (see Eph 4:29 for the latter). But of the fruit, Jesus uses the typical word for “evil,” πονηρός (ponēros). There is another word for “bad” in the Greek (κακός, kakos) that seems to be an antonym for agathos, but it is not found in this passage. So the latter half could read, “The rotten tree produces evil fruit.” Jesus doesn’t beat around the bush (or the tree) with this one. He jumps straight to judgment of those who aren’t producing healthy fruit.

Matthew 12:33-34 adds to this teaching as well. In a similar passage there, Jesus uses kalos and sapros to speak of both the tree and the fruit, but in 34, when he applies the analogy to his listeners, he uses agathos and ponēros to describe them.

Scott Stocking, M.Div.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.