Sunday Morning Greek Blog

January 20, 2019

Indignant Jesus: The Variant Reading of Mark 1:41 (NIV & TNIV)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Evangelism,Greek,Life of Christ,Luke Gospel of,Mark Gospel of,Miracles,New Testament,Textual Criticism — Scott Stocking @ 6:40 am
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

[Author’s Note: Thank you to all who’ve made this the #1 post for 2021 through June. I trust you’re finding it helpful. I’m always curious to know how my posts are used and how you were referred to them, especially if they’re used as an assigned reading in a college class. I’m not seeking any compensation for such use; I’m trying to collect some data I can use to show potential employers my articles have academic value.]

I was rather surprised the other day when I read Mark 1:41 in the NIV (2011 edition). A man with leprosy came to Jesus and asked him to heal him. The NIV text says “Jesus was indignant,” but he still “reached out his hand and touched the man.” The obvious question here is, “Why was Jesus indignant?” After all, most other English translations of the Bible, as well as the eclectic Greek text, say “Jesus had compassion.” So how did the NIV committee arrive at the “indignant” translation?

The Variant Reading: External Evidence

In Mark 1:41, the editors of the United Bible Societies (UBS) Greek New Testament (GNT; Third and Fourth editions) have settled on σπλαγχνισθεὶς (splanchnistheis, from σπλαγχνίζομαι splanchnizomai, “I have compassion on”) for the original text. All but one Greek manuscript uses this word. The only Greek manuscript that doesn’t is Fifth Century Codex Bezae (identified as “D” in the UBS apparatus), which uses ὀργισθεὶς (orgistheis, from ὀργίζομαι orgizomai, “I am angry”; seventh line down, second Greek/Latin word respectively in the line). The parallel Latin text on the opposing page has iratus (pp. 557–8).

In the Third Edition, the editors were unsure they had restored the original text and gave it the lowest certainty rating possible: D (not to be confused with the apparatus designation of the same letter). In the Fourth Edition, however, the editors upgraded their certainty of σπλαγχνισθεὶς to B.

Now one might think the volume of the “external” evidence (that is, all of the documents that have σπλαγχνισθεὶς, and the relative age of those documents) might be enough to convince translators that Mark 1:41 should be translated “Jesus had compassion,” but external evidence does not always have the final word. Translators must also consider the “internal” evidence in support of a particular reading. Internal evidence considers such things as the surrounding context, parallel or similar passages, and any structural considerations.

Internal Evidence

Bill Mounce has a summary of the external issues in this passage, but he did not delve very deep into internal issues that may have influenced the Mark 1:41 NIV translation. In fact, I’m a bit surprised that Mounce himself was surprised to find the NIV had “Jesus was indignant,” because he was on the NIV translation committee! He may not have translated Mark, though, so I can’t be too hard on him, and the intermediate TNIV translation had already switched to “indignant” from the original NIV’s “compassion” before Mounce joined the NIV committee. One of the principles of determining the original reading (a process called “textual criticism”) is that the translator prefer the most difficult reading of the text. “Jesus was indignant” certainly fits that given the immediate situation in the verses. Add to that that it would have been very tempting for a copyist to “soften the blow” of ὀργισθεὶς by substituting σπλαγχνισθεὶς, since that is exactly what Jesus does in this situation.

According to Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (the GNT editorial committee’s explanation of choices made among variant readings), they thought that Jesus’ “strong warning” in vs. 43 might be one piece of internal evidence to support ὀργισθεὶς. The editors also cite similar statements in Mark 3:5 and 10:14. I would add to this that the broader context of the passage would seem to hint that Jesus may indeed be indignant. In 35–37, Jesus goes off to a solitary place to pray, but his disciples come looking for him because everyone else is looking for Jesus. Jesus’s response in vs. 38 is telling: “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.” And so he went out preaching and driving out demons. Verse 39 says nothing of Jesus healing people. In other words, it seems that Jesus wanted a break from the healing, because that wasn’t his main purpose while on Earth.

And so we come to the scene with the man with leprosy. Could it be that Jesus is indignant because he knows what will happen if he heals another person? It’s not that Jesus does not want to heal the man: it’s clear he’s willing to. But the man fails to heed Jesus’s “strong warning” not to tell anyone, and v. 45 says, “As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places.” He wanted to preach, but the crowds he was attracting with his healing were hindering that mission. I can see how that would make him indignant.

One other point that Mounce makes is that the BAGD lexicon does not list “indignant” as a meaning for ὀργισθεὶς. However, a couple other Scriptures outside of Mark may imply “indignation” more so than “anger.” The most significant of the 8 other occurrences of ὀργίζομαι is found in Luke 15:28, at the end of the story of the Prodigal Son. The older brother is “angry” for sure, to the point of “righteous indignation” for how his prodigal brother is treated. Luke 14:21 seems to carry the idea of indignation as well, where the master of the banquet brings in the commoners after his invited guests have turned down his generous invitation. Another Greek word, ἀγανακτέω (aganakteō), usually carries the sense of “indignant.”

Weighing the Evidence

Although between Metzger, the NIV translation, and my own contributions here, I think I’ve made a pretty solid case for choosing the less common variant ὀργισθεὶς, it is difficult to overlook the preponderance of external evidence for σπλαγχνισθεὶς. The most prominent uncial manuscripts are all contemporary with or earlier than D, so that is a significant strike against the argument from internal evidence. It is also possible that, if this was copied as someone read the text to roomful of scribes, the copyist of D misheard the person who was reading the text and used the wrong word. It’s possible the copyist still had in his mind words like ERCHetai and pARAKalōn from vs. 40 and prefixed the wrong, but similar sounding, root (ORG) to the istheis ending he heard. The parallel passages in Mt 8:2–4 and Lk 5:12–14 say nothing of Jesus’s attitude toward the situation, so there is no reason the copyist would have tried to change the word to harmonize the passage with parallel accounts.

Conclusion

As such, as much as I like the NIV and respect those I’ve read and have met on the translation committee, I must disagree with the translation “Jesus was indignant.” I think the weight and character of the external evidence outweighs the logic of the internal evidence. If we had more Greek manuscripts that had ὀργισθεὶς in that verse, it might be more compelling to accept “indignant.” But as it stands, I think the solid tradition of most English translations accepting the settled text of the GNT wins the day. Mark 1:41 should be translated “Jesus, having compassion, stretched out his hand….”

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My opinions are my own.

June 9, 2013

εὐθύς in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 1:3; Isaiah 40:3)

Filed under: Authorship,Christology,Eschatology,Evangelism,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,Isaiah,Life of Christ,Mark Gospel of,New Testament,Septuagint — Scott Stocking @ 6:08 pm
Tags: , , ,

In this post:

  • The prophetic quotes in Mark 1:2–3
  • Thematic use of εὐθύς
  • Summary of the projects I’ve been working on
  • A personal note on my hiatus (moved to end 1/3/26)

Prophecy in Mark 1

As I started through Mark’s Gospel last week, looking at it in English and Greek, I noticed a few things worth mentioning. Mark opens his Gospel with quotes from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. I want to put the Isaiah and Mark passages side by side in Table 1 so you can see some interesting but relatively benign punctuation differences. Keep in mind that punctuation is a much later addition to the biblical text. The ancients didn’t waste papyrus and parchment with commas, dashes, quotation marks, or spaces between words!

Table 1

Isaiah 40:3 (NIV) Mark 1:3 (NIV)

3 A voice of one calling:

“In the wilderness prepare

the way for the Lord;

make straight in the desert

a highway for our God.

3 “a voice of one calling
in the wilderness,

‘Prepare the way for the Lord,

make straight paths for him.'”

Notice, for example, that the Isaiah quote has the one calling saying, “In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord,” while the editors of Mark obviously see a reference to John the Baptizer here: “a voice of one calling in the wilderness.” The punctuation in the Isaiah passage is consistent with the accenting and format of the printed BHS text but again keep in mind that these are editorial decisions, not a part of the original text.

The Septuagint (LXX, Greek translation of OT which is the source of all OT quotes in the NT) has the quotation beginning at “Prepare,” but again, an editorial decision, since the beginning of a quotation in Greek is marked by a capital letter in the modern text, and the original Greek text was in all capital letters!

I don’t really perceive a significant difference in the meaning of the text one way or the other. In the Isaiah version, “wilderness” is probably figurative for any place or person who needs to be revived by God. In the LXX/Mark version, “wilderness” is a literal reference to the place where John was preaching. The important part of this verse in my mind is the last half: “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”

εὐθύς

In one of my earliest blog posts, I made a passing reference to the fact that Mark uses the Greek adverb εὐθύς 41 times in his Gospel (by contrast, the word is used only 17 times in the rest of the New Testament). [NOTE: Strong’s has the adverb form as εὐθέως from the textus receptus, but modern eclectic texts use εὐθυς.) The word means “immediately” or “at once” as an adverb. However, the word is also an adjective that means “straight,” which is found in Mark 1:3 and the LXX translation of Isaiah 40:3. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 40:3 (ישׁר) has the idea of no turning to the left or right, and perhaps even making something level (see Prov. 4:25–27; cf. Heb. 12:13).

So what’s the big deal? Here it is: Mark is using the adverb form as thematic connection to the prophecy with which he opens his Gospel. Many probably think John the Baptizer is the one “preparing the way of the Lord,” but Mark’s repeated use of εὐθύς suggests that he’s portraying Jesus as the one “making straight” the way of the Lord. In Mark’s Gospel, then, εὐθύς represents the urgency with which Jesus went about his ministry. Aside from Jesus’s miracles, the fact that he was clearing the way of the legalism and unreasonable rules of the religious elite shows that Jesus was making the path to God more direct; he was making “straight paths” in wilderness of Jewish legalism. That was ultimately symbolized when the veil of the temple was rent at Jesus’s crucifixion. Man no longer needed an intermediary to get to God because of what Jesus had accomplished on the cross.

Conclusion

Mark, in all its simplicity as the shortest Gospel, seems to have a singular focus on making “straight paths” for the Lord. Matthew has a definite emphasis on the broad view of prophecy in his Gospel, while Luke is concerned more with historical accuracy and detail. But Mark’s Gospel should not be ignored just because it is short or abridged. He shows a sophistication in style comparable to Matthew and Luke.

A Personal Note on My Hiatus

I’ve been on a hiatus from the blog because my schedule got bogged down last summer. I took on an assignment in addition to my full-time job to edit and comment on Greek-English lexicon/concordance that is in the works (I can’t say anything more than that at this point, at least not until there’s a release date publicized). The concordance part was actually built into the lexical entries, which made for time-consuming reading. The author would list all occurrences of a word, often without the context lines. Add to that the extra time it takes to read numbers relative to words of the same character length on the page. Consider the difference between the following:

A reference would appear like this:

Mt. 22:36–38

As I was editing, I would read:

Matthew twenty-two, thirty-six through thirty-eight

Now imagine 600+ pages filled with a couple hundred references like that on each page, and the reading time per page nearly triples! Needless to say, I had to take a break after almost every page just to maintain my sanity! Fortunately, it was not my job to check the accuracy of each reference (although I did find the occasional error there on familiar passages), otherwise, I’d still be at it. The other challenging part of the edit was that the author’s preferred texts for the English translations were the King James Version and Darby’s translation, which resulted in some interesting entries (I had never heard or seen the word “dropsical” until I saw this dictionary).

The other project that came up is a new study Bible [1/1/26 Author’s Note: I realized I never returned to this post let you know I am listed as a Contributing Writer in three versions of The Jeremiah Study Bible (NKJV, ESV, NIV)]. It’s been challenging, rewarding, and even a little fun reviewing the notes, primarily for Old Testament books, and making suggestions and comments. I’m learning a great deal more about the OT and translation in general. I’m collaborating with a team of other reviewers; I even used one reviewer’s book on Bible study methods early in my teaching career. When that study Bible gets published, I’ll let you know.

I did finish reading through the Greek New Testament a second time in the process, but I’ve taken a break from a stringent schedule and had turned again to reading the Old Testament (in English, but still consulting the Hebrew) until I started participating in a men’s discipleship group. I set up a reading schedule for the guys that starts us in Mark’s Gospel. I also asked them to hold me accountable for getting back into the blogosphere, and rereading Mark 1 provided the perfect occasion for doing so.

June 24, 2012

Scandalous Living

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,John Gospel of,Life of Christ,Luke Gospel of,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 6:04 pm

This past weekend, I finished leading our men’s group in a nine-week study through John Eldredge‘s Beautiful Outlaw. The subtitle of the book is “Experiencing the Playful, Disruptive, Extravagant Personality of Jesus,” which should clue you in as to the subject of the book. The basic premise of the book is this: because Jesus is the incarnation of God, every aspect of his personality has the divine imprint. If God the Father could be human, Jesus is the ultimate and unique example of how God the Father would live on this earth. Every aspect of Jesus’s personality is perfect in human form: his sense of humor, generosity, conversation, passions, playfulness, love, relationships, and so forth all emanate from his Father, God the Father (John 5:19).

Breaking Barriers

Jesus went places where good Jews of his day avoided. Jesus spoke to men and women of ethnic backgrounds the Jews despised. Jesus broke the barriers of cultural taboos by reaching out to and even touching the “untouchables.” Jesus challenged the religiosity of the status quo to shed a fresh new light on what it meant to be a God-follower. Unfortunately, too many Christians, both individually and collectively in various expressions of the church, have exalted Jesus to so heavenly a status that they have forgotten he had his human side. Lest I be misunderstood, Jesus’s human side was kept in check by his divine nature, something you and I don’t have. He had no sin. We can get away with saying, “I’m only human.” But Jesus can’t. Jesus was humanity at its best because he was divinely empowered to live the human life. So the church needs to take a closer look at not just the words he said, but the things he did and the way he lived here on terra firma.

The Samaritan Taboo

The story of Jesus’s encounter with the woman at the well in John 4 is a perfect example. In vs. 4, John says of Jesus, “It was necessary for him to travel through Samaria” (my translation). Similar constructions elsewhere in the New Testament are often translated “He must.” If Jews wanted to go north and south from Galilee to Jerusalem, the direct route was through Samaria. But since Jews hated Samaritans with such a passion, they would often cross over to the east side of the Jordan River and travel the longer route rather than set foot in Samaritan territory. Why was it necessary for him to go through Samaria? Because that’s what his Father wanted him to do!

Now when Jesus and the disciples arrive, Jesus breaks two taboos (at least). First, he talks to a Samaritan, the most despised class of people to the Jews. That’s bad enough in the eyes of the religious elite of the day. But this Samaritan is also a woman, and it was certainly not the norm for a Jewish male to talk to any woman alone in public (the disciples had gone off to buy food). I think it is important to note that in talking with this woman who in on her sixth “husband,” who has come out to the well at an unusual time of day, that Jesus never actually condemns the woman in any way or outright says that she’s living a sinful life, although the latter could be implied from his statement that her current “man” is not her husband. Historical and modern scholars have mostly inferred that the woman has a questionable character from the circumstantial evidence in the text. But just as he would later refuse to condemn the woman caught in adultery (variant reading in John 8), he does not speak words of condemnation here, only words of life.

A third taboo may be implied as well, although I find some mixed evidence in the Mishnah (the written interpretation of Jewish oral law generally accepted or debated at the time of Jesus). Drinking or eating from a Samaritan vessel may have been frowned upon as well. In some passages in the Mishnah, Samaritan offerings are acceptable, whereas some gentile offerings are specifically forbidden or given a lower status. However, Shebiith 8:10 says that Rabbi Eliezer considered eating Samaritan bread equivalent to eating the flesh of swine. If the disciples went off to a Samaritan town to get food, it’s most likely that R. Eliezer’s opinion was in the minority and not widely accepted.

The Sinful Anointer

This wasn’t Jesus’s only “scandalous” contact with a woman. In Matthew 26 and Mark 14, we have parallel accounts of a woman anointing Jesus’s head with an alabaster jar of expensive perfume, which Jesus says is part of his preparation for burial. In Luke 7, we have a similar story, except in Luke’s account, the woman pours the perfume on Jesus’s feet after washing them with her tears and her hair. Not only that, this woman kisses Jesus’s feet as well. Luke mentions that Simon considers the woman a sinner. In the Matthew and Mark accounts, the disciples and other dinner guests are indignant with the woman and treat her rudely. But Jesus hardly bats an eye at the event. He considers it a beautiful thing and even says that the woman’s actions would be immortalized in the Gospels.

Standing with the Leper

Jesus’s “scandals” were not limited to women, though. Many are familiar with the story of Jesus healing lepers. That’s something we would expect a compassionate healer like Jesus to do. But not only does he heal some of them merely by his words, he also reaches out and touches a leper. In the normal course of Jewish life, lepers had to walk around with their faces covered and shout “Unclean!” so that Jews would not be ceremonially defiled by them. But Jesus chooses to skirt the custom rather than the leper. When he touches the leper, the leper is healed. So is Jesus unclean or not? Or does Jesus even care if he’s unclean? Jesus chooses compassion over custom so that the world can know the deep, deep love that he and his Father have for creation.

Jesus, Lord of Life

I’ve blogged before about Jesus’s “I am” statements in the Gospel of John. Three of them are relevant here: “I am the Bread of Life,”
“I am the Resurrection and the Life,” and “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” Jesus came to bring life to a world that was looking for it in the wrong places. The religious leaders of the Jews thought it was found in absolute strict adherence to the law, so much so that they built a “hedge” around the law so that people might know when they were close to crossing the boundary (the word “Mishnah” means “hedge,” and the book is just as thick as a Bible with tinier print!). But Jesus blows that all to smithereens by simplifying it all for us: “Love God and love your neighbor.” If you do those two things, you don’t have to worry about the hedge.

Scandalous Living in the 21st Century Church

For many years, I pastored in small, rural congregations in Illinois. As you might expect in a small town, everyone knows your business whether you want them to or not. In some ways that’s good, but in other ways, that can be a great hindrance to ministry. Why? Because you can’t go to the places where those not religiously inclined hang out to share what’s important. I decided early in my Christian walk that it would be okay for me to hang out in bar with friends and acquaintances. I really don’t have a problem with Christians (or people of any other faith or nonfaith for that matter) drinking alcohol in moderation. Jesus, the true vine, did change water into premium alcoholic wine at the wedding in Cana. In my journey to be like Jesus, I want to be where the people are.

My half-siblings play in a trivia league in Omaha. Most of the trivia contests take place in bars. I love trivia, and I’m a pretty smart cookie, so I think I’d do pretty well in that setting. So last week, I joined the trivia league that meets at Maloney’s Irish Pub. It’s fun, and it’s great interaction with family and new friends and acquaintances. And it certainly beats staying home alone playing Words with Friends and Hidden Chronicles. I enjoy the company and the challenge. If Jesus can supply a couple hundred gallons of premium wine for a celebration, certainly I can enjoy a Sprite with friends!

Conclusion

Although I enjoyed my time as a pastor, I’m not sure I was really cut out for the rural scene. I am glad I’m not a pastor now, because I feel freer than ever to share the life of Jesus in places where my previous congregations would have surely fired me for going. I feel like I can truly have a ministry of the mundane (as Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it) among friends, family, and coworkers while I live the scandalous life of Jesus.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

May 27, 2012

Some Thoughts on the Trial of Jesus (Luke 22:67–70 and parallels)

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Luke Gospel of,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Passion — Scott Stocking @ 7:21 am

Something interesting struck me as I read Jesus’s response to the illegal council called to accuse him of blasphemy and condemn him to be crucified. Jesus tends to be a little tight lipped in the Gospel accounts of his Passion, so the words the Gospel writers attribute to Jesus are important for understanding why he responded the way he did when he did. Let me cite the relevant passages in a vertical parallel, all from the NIV (with the exception of the plural “you” modified in Luke):

Parallel Accounts of the Trial Statement

Matthew 26:62–64

62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64“You [singular] have said so” (Σὺ εἶπας), Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Mark 14:60–62

60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62“I am” (Ἐγώ εἰμι), said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Luke 22:67–70

67“If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” 70They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “Y’all say that I am” (Ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι).

John’s account of this meeting (John 18:19–24) is so different that it won’t be a factor in my comparison here, but I will return to it in a later post. Let me illustrate the key differences in the three Synoptic passages in Table 1:

 

Table 1: Parallel accounts of the “Son of Man” statements in the Gospel trials

Matthew 26:63–64 “Tell us if you are the Messiah…” [follows] “You (sg) have said” [omits] “Son of Man sitting…” “coming in the clouds of heaven”
Mark 14:61–62 “Are you the Messiah…?” [follows] [omits] “I am” “Son of Man sitting…” “coming in the clouds of heaven”
Luke 22:69–70 “Are you the Son of God?” “Son of man will be seated…” “You (pl) say that… … I am” [precedes] [omits]

Explanation

Luke only has Jesus quoting Psalm 110:1 (109:1 LXX) about sitting at God’s right hand before saying “You say that I am.” Matthew and Mark both add Daniel 7:13, “coming in the clouds of heaven” (a clear reference to the Messianic portion of Daniel) after the Psalm 110:1 quotation, but they put those quotations after the “You say” (Matthew) or “I am” (Mark). The little bit about sitting at God’s right hand may seem perfectly innocuous to us, unless we, like the Jewish scribes, understand the full context of Psalm 110:1. The very next phrase after “Sit at my right hand” in that verse is “until I make your enemies your footstool.” Wow! Here we have the Pharisees accusing Jesus, and Jesus responding with a statement that essential signals his accusers are enemies of God! Not exactly a soft-spoken answer when you come to think about it. Add to that the quotation from Daniel, and Jesus is really putting the Sanhedrin in its place: By saying the Son of Man will come on the clouds, he is equating himself with the “Ancient of Days” in Daniel, leaving no doubt about his divine mandate and divine nature.

Add to that Mark and Luke’s account of Jesus using the phrase Ἐγώ εἰμι, which some in Jesus’s day (or even in the modern day) see as an intentional reference to God’s divine name in Exodus 3:14 (see discussion below), and we’ve got Jesus essentially giving the Sanhedrin the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Jesus proved it over and over again (in John’s account, Jesus chides the Sanhedrin for doing this in secret when he taught publicly everywhere he went), but the Pharisees have to say it as well, especially the high priest (see, for example, John 11:51).

One thing to keep in mind when examining the modern eclectic Greek New Testament: punctuation was added at a much later date. It didn’t exist in the autographs. Have you ever thought about why, after the Sanhedrin “asks” Jesus a question (in the NIV, anyway), Jesus treats the “question” like a regular statement? There is no “question” word that one might expect to find if the one asking the question expected a certain answer. Granted, not all questions need one of these special words to be understood as a question, but in the case of the Gospel writers, I would suggest that the phrase Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ be taken as a statement, not a question. This accomplishes two things in my mind if it is true:

  1. If John 11:51 has a broader application, then the high priest not only must prophesy about Jesus’s death, but he must also prophesy about his nature: The high priest prophesies that Jesus is the Son of Man; that means there is now another witness to Jesus’s true nature, but
  2. Without Jesus ever directly stating it in trial (with the possible exception of Mark, who may have a shortened version of Luke’s account), Jesus stealthily gets the Sanhedrin (or at least the high priest) to commit “blasphemy” by declaring Jesus to be the Son of Man. When Jesus says “You have said it,” he is in fact turning the tables on them and accusing them of very “blasphemy” they’re trying to pin on him! (I recognize there’s no real blasphemy here, because Jesus really is the Son of Man, but the Sanhedrin doesn’t want to see things that way.)

I think this latter point especially is fully in keeping with the nature of how Jesus responded to the religious rulers of his day. He always turned the tables on them to show them their erroneous thinking and oppressive religious “leadership,” if one can call it that. If Jesus had said outright the full phrase in their hearing, it would have been over and done, and the Sanhedrin would have been fully justified in their own minds in sentencing Jesus to death. Jesus was not wont to leave them with that kind of self-satisfaction. The reason the Sanhedrin gets so angry is precisely because Jesus has tricked them into committing the very “blasphemy” of which they are accusing him. Jesus had said that the demons believe he is the Son of Man, and they tremble. Here, the Sanhedrin apparently believes it as well, but instead of trembling in fear, they steel themselves against the possibility and (mis)use their authority to have Jesus arrested and eventually crucified.

Is Ἐγώ εἰμι a Direct Reference to Exodus 3:14?

As tempting as it is to always assume that when Jesus says Ἐγώ εἰμι, he is always referring to the divine name in Exodus 3:14, I have to reject that notion to be universally true in the Gospels. There are clearly times when Jesus uses the phrase simply to indicate his presence or his existence without the theological weight. Given the full statement in Luke that includes those words (and since I think Luke is on most things more thorough than Mark), I don’t think Jesus saying Ἐγώ εἰμι here has much theological weight. What seems to upset the Sanhedrin is Jesus’s quotation of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 more than anything else. Of course, Jesus could have said it in isolation (as Mark has it recorded) to get the Sanhedrin’s dander up, to make them think that’s what he meant even though he didn’t. It’s a word play that’s not intended to deceive, but to drive home the point.

Conclusion

These parallel accounts in the Synoptic Gospels raise some interesting issues in my mind. I think Jesus remains consistent with his approach to the religious elite of his day by not giving them the satisfaction of thinking they are right. A more detailed treatment of John’s version of these events goes beyond the scope of this blog post, but as I’m reading through John again now, I’m already finding things in the earlier part of his Gospel that tie into that account, so you can be sure I will have another post on these events from John’s perspective.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

March 11, 2012

The Passion Week of Christ

Filed under: John Gospel of,Life of Christ,Luke Gospel of,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of — Scott Stocking @ 2:11 pm

I have been swamped this past week or so with an albatross of an edit. I haven’t had time to put anything new together, but I thought with Resurrection Sunday coming up, I’d index the links to my blog posts on the final week of Christ’s earthly ministry. I’m guessing there might be a minister or two out there struggling for some sermon ideas.

“Why Have You Forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34, par. Psalm 22:1)

Thieves, Robbers, or Rebels?

“I Am the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25)

Judas’s Kiss (Matthew 26:48–49; Mark 14:45)

“If I’ve Told You Once, I’ve Told You a Thousand Times…”

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

Let the Sleeping Saints Arise!

“Father, Forgive Them…” (Luke 23:34)

A Truly Open Communion?

Peace to all!

Scott Stocking

February 20, 2012

Judas’s Kiss (Matthew 26:48–49; Mark 14:45)

Filed under: Acts,Life of Christ,Luke Gospel of,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Passion,Septuagint — Scott Stocking @ 2:43 pm

Introduction

Those of us who read the Scriptures with any regularity (and even with some irregularity) have noticed the phenomenon of selective attention. What I mean by this is, when you read a passage of Scripture you know you’ve read before, you notice something that speaks to your heart in such a way that you say, “Why didn’t I see that before.” That has happened to me quite often in reading the English translations of the Bible, even though English is my native tongue. You’d think I’d remember more than I do when I read Scripture. But now on my second time through the Greek New Testament (GNT), I am experiencing that same phenomenon. Of course, having that full year of experience has seasoned me to notice certain features of the text that the occasional reader of the GNT might not notice.

Matthew 26:48–49

The subject of this blog post is one such passage. Matthew 26:48–49 is part of the story of Judas betraying Jesus to the authorities. My discussion in this post centers around the nature of the “kiss” by which Judas identified Jesus to the authorities. Here is how the text reads in the NIV, with the Greek words translated “kiss” identified:

Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss [φιλήσω from φιλέω] is the man; arrest him.” Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed [κατεφίλησεν from καταφιλέω] him.

The “Kiss”

New Testament Usage

Some may think the different words used for “kiss” here represent merely a stylistic difference, but an examination of the second word, καταφιλέω, reveals an interesting nuance that is lost in translation but not in context. The word is used six times in the New Testament: once each by Matthew and Mark (14:45) in their respective betrayal pericopes; and four times by Luke—three in his Gospel (Luke 7:38, 45; 15:20) and once in Acts (20:37).

Luke mentions the φιλέω kiss in his passion story, but he never outright says that Judas kissed Jesus. But it is Luke’s use of καταφιλέω that reveals the important nuance in Matthew and Mark. Luke 7 is the story of the woman who washes Jesus feet with perfume, tears, and her hair. The kissing is portrayed as a repeated action that at the same time indicates a sort of “sorrowful joy.” She is both truly repentant and truly grateful for the forgiveness Jesus would proclaim to her. In vs. 45, Luke even contrasts the φιλέω kiss he should have received from Simon as a customary greeting with the woman’s repeated καταφιλέω kissing. So Luke was fully aware of the contrast between the two words, just as Matthew and Mark were.

In Luke 15, Jesus uses καταφιλέω of the father welcoming home the prodigal son. In Acts 20:37, Luke again uses the word to describe what happened when Paul departed from Miletus after saying farewell to the Ephesian elders. Paul is facing grave danger as he returns to Jerusalem, and many of his friends think they will never see him again. This is no peck on the cheek. Strong emotions always accompany this kind of “kiss.”

Old Testament Usage

The use of this word in the Septuagint (LXX) is no different. It describes the affection Laban showed his grandchildren when Jacob departed (Genesis 31:28, 32:1). It also describes Joseph’s reunion with his brothers in Egypt (Genesis 45:15). Naomi parted with Orpah with this kind of kiss, and the bond was so strong that Ruth insisted on returning to Bethlehem with Naomi (Ruth 1:9, 14). The word describes David’s friendship with Jonathan as well (1 Samuel 20:41). But lest I be misunderstood or misinterpreted, there is absolutely no sexual connotation in these farewell “kisses.” They reveal the very deep bond of friendship that the people experienced.

Judas’s Kiss: What It Means

So what does this all mean for Judas’s kiss? The fact that Matthew and Mark use καταφιλέω to describe Judas’s betrayal kiss reveals a couple things in my mind. First, Judas seems to have genuinely loved Jesus. I don’t think it’s fair to suggest he wasn’t genuine about the show of affection, especially given the desperation of his remorse after the fact. Second, because of that love, I have to wonder if Judas was trying to force Jesus’s hand by having him arrested. Judas wanted as much as anyone to throw off Roman rule, but Judas apparently didn’t like where things were headed. I think it is within the realm of reason to suggest that Judas thought by having Jesus arrested, Jesus’s followers would rise up rebellion against Rome. Or perhaps he even thought that Jesus would make a mighty show of divine power to overthrow Rome.

His actions do not strike me as those of a man who had a traitorous heart from the beginning. Rather they seem to be desperate measures by a disillusioned man who was trying to make one last attempt to have things go his way. When he failed miserably and realized he had condemned his friend to death rather initiating a new world order, he killed himself in an ultimate act of desperation.

Conclusion

How many times do you and I get disillusioned about the way God is working in our lives? I know I have done my share of complaining to God that he’s not doing things the way I think he should be doing them. Then in desperation, I do something in an attempt to force God’s hand and realize after the fact how foolish I really was. I need to work on developing that deep and abiding trust in God that makes me want to melt into his καταφιλέω affection for me, just as the prodigal experienced when he returned home.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

November 1, 2011

“Father, Forgive Them…” (Luke 23:34)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Christology,Greek,Luke Gospel of,New Testament,Passion,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 5:32 pm
Tags: ,

A friend of mine asked me the following question on Facebook and gave me permission to post the question and my response (edited a bit) here.

Here’s a question for you, Scott. Was just reading Luke 23:34 where Jesus says, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” Really? They didn’t know what they were doing? Then can’t we all be absolved on the same basis, that we don’t know what we are doing? Also, didn’t they know in some sense what they were doing? Didn’t they at least know they were murdering an innocent man? They knew they were having to “plot” against him . . . Just wondered.

Some observations:

  1. You are not alone in questioning this statement. It is in double brackets in the Greek text, which means it is of questionable authenticity but was retained given its prominent place in church history and liturgy. (In the UBS 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament, the statement has a C rating on a scale of A to D, with A representing the highest certainty that the original text is restored.) I could not find the statement in any of the other Gospels, so it appears to be unique to Luke.
  2. Who are the “them” he forgives? The immediate context seems to suggest they’re the soldiers, who were only following orders and didn’t have a clue about Jesus being the Son of God and Savior.
  3. John 11:49–52 seems to imply that the leaders really didn’t understand the full implication of what they were doing. Yes, they knew they were plotting, but John’s statement about Caiaphas’s unwitting prophecy seems to imply the Jewish leaders were more or less in the dark about who Jesus really was and is.
  4. We can offer forgiveness to anyone regardless of intent, motivation, etc. Jesus is not declaring that they are forgiven, but rather asking the Father to forgive them. “Ignorant” people sin all the time: ignorance is no excuse for sin (or civic lawbreaking for that matter), but it is not unforgivable. Great question!

[For those of you wondering when something from Thessalonians or Timothy is coming along, please be patient. I’m working on an update of my treatment of women in leadership from 1 Timothy 3 and surrounding contexts. It’s taken on a life of its own, it seems, and I keep learning new truths about the passage.]

Peace!

Scott Stocking

February 21, 2011

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)

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!

« Previous Page

Website Powered by WordPress.com.