Sunday Morning Greek Blog

March 3, 2024

The Eighth Commandment, the Eighth Amendment, and Cancel Culture

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

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

Background and Basis

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Eighth Commandment in Context

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

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

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

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

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

29 Do not plot harm against your neighbor,

who lives trustfully near you.

30 Do not accuse anyone for no reason—

when they have done you no harm.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Eighth Amendment in Context

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

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

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

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

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

Cancel Culture

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

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

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

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My opinions are my own.

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

Rachel Weeping: The Objectification of Gender and Children

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

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

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

May 11, 2022

A Tale of Two Preachers: Life Lessons from Peter and Paul

Filed under: 1 Peter,Acts,Biblical Studies — Scott Stocking @ 9:21 pm
Tags: , , ,
Listen to “A Tale of Two Preachers”

Message preached at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, May 1, 2022. Lightly edited for publication.

I want to start off this morning with a personal note: I have thoroughly enjoyed filling the pulpit here at the church I grew up in, and hope to continue to do so as long as you’ll have me. My last main preaching assignment in Illinois before moving back to Nebraska was in a rural community of about 400 people that had seven churches, and the attendance at the church I served was a little less than it has been here. But in many respects, even as a small church in middle of a metro area of about half a million people, you’re not unlike those rural folks.

Most of my ministry career in Illinois from 1987 through 2007 was spent in towns of less than 5,000 people. But even though I now find myself preaching with some regularity in a city 100 or even 1,000 times larger than what I was used to, I’m really not feeling any different about the task here as I did in rural Illinois. I’m grateful for these opportunities, and they have helped me sharpen my preaching and academic skills.

Now this week, the lectionary readings presented me with a bit of a challenge with what to preach on. Two of the four passages in Lectionary calendar had to do with two different apostles being commissioned to preach God’s word to the early church. We’ve read from both of them this morning (John 21:15-19; Acts 9:1-6). It seemed odd to me that I might have to choose either Peter’s reinstatement after the resurrection or Paul’s conversion on the Damascus Road. But then I realized I could probably relate to both and glean some valuable principles from their respective stories to share with and encourage you this morning. With that said, let’s take a look at some of the highlights (and lowlights) of Peter first, followed by Paul, and see what we can learn for ourselves about being evangelists for the risen Lord.

Peter’s Life

Of all the apostles who traveled with Jesus during his earth-bound ministry, Peter is certainly the most famous. Throughout the Gospels, we see that Peter was often the first one to open his mouth, the first one to volunteer, or the first one to make a big promise. Of course, this also meant that he was usually the first to eat his words, the first one to be rebuked, or the first one to fail in some way, large or small.

Now Simon Peter, along with his brother Andrew, were the first two apostles to follow Jesus. In John 1:42, Jesus officially gives him the name “Cephas” (Aramaic), which is translated in Greek as “Peter,” both of which mean “rock.” In the lists of the apostles, Simon Peter is always found first, which is certainly a nod to his position in the early church at the time the Gospels were being written.

Now we know Peter was not from any elite class of his day. He and his brother were fishermen, and they probably socialized with other fishermen, namely the sons of Zebedee, James and John. These fishermen probably had a pretty good knowledge of the OT, especially the Psalms, from their time in the Synagogue on Sabbath and the basic education any Hebrew youth would have received. They just didn’t go on any farther in the education to be a pharisee or other religious leader.

In Matthew 14, we have the story of Jesus walking on the water to the boat the apostles were in, which was being buffeted by the waves. Of course, Peter is the first one to speak up about going out to see Jesus. Here’s a man who wants to take charge, take the lead, and show the others what it truly means to follow. Jesus invites Peter out of the boat to walk on the choppy waters, and for a time, Peter does walk on the water. But instead of keeping his eyes on and faith in Jesus, the wind and the waves around him cause him to fear and doubt, and he begins to sink. Jesus catches him, though, and they both get back on the boat.

What’s impressive here is that Peter was the only one who even thought of getting out of the boat, and then he followed through on his thought. None of the other apostles had the courage of Peter to follow their master in this radical way, by trying to muster up the faith to do what no other mortal had ever done.

It wasn’t long after that incident that Peter had the opportunity to say what none of the other apostles were willing to say. In Matthew 16, Jesus asks the apostles, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” The apostles hem and haw and beat around the bush, but Peter is the first to answer Jesus’s more direct question, “Who do YOU say I am?” Peter responds boldly, proclaiming that “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus praises Peter for his response. But in the very next paragraph, when Jesus predicts his death, Peter rebukes Jesus for talking like that. Jesus immediately rebukes Peter, saying “Get behind me, Satan.” Talk about going from emotional high to emotional low!

A few weeks ago, we saw one of the last major blunders of Peter before Christ’s crucifixion. He claimed he would never forsake Christ, yet on the night of the illegal trial to condemn Jesus, Peter denies knowing Christ three times. And Jesus had told him he would do that despite Peter’s repeated objections. Peter had to feel like the bottom of the barrel at that point.

And so we come to the Gospel text we read this morning, John 21:15–19, the story of Jesus reinstating Peter to his leadership role. I don’t think there’s anything significant to be made of the two different Greek words used for “love” in this passage. But why did Jesus ask Peter three times if he loved him? Because Peter denied Jesus three times. Jesus gave Peter a three-fold mission here: “Feed my lambs”; “Take care of my sheep”; and “Feed my sheep.” Again, not much difference between the three, but a commission to care for the church, young and old, when it would begin on the Day of Pentecost. The result? We never hear about Peter’s shortcomings throughout the rest of the book of Acts. And he wrote two epistles to boot.

Lessons from Peter’s Life

So what can we learn from Peter here before moving on to talk about Paul’s ministry? First, don’t be afraid to do great things for God. “Great” may not necessarily be fabulous or seen by all. Sometimes the smallest gesture can have a huge impact. Theodore Roosevelt makes the point here: “Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they lie in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”

Second, God can work with whatever level of faith you’re willing to bring to the table. It took incredible faith just for Peter to get out of the boat in those choppy conditions, let walking on water. As Yoda says, “Do or do not. There is no try.”

Third, know that when we mess up, it’s not the end of the road with God. Peter probably thought he had lost his place among the apostles. But as 2 Timothy 2:13 says, “If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself,” that is, he can’t disown those who are members of his body, the church.

Paul’s Life

Now Paul had quite a different introduction to Jesus. While he was headed to Damascus “breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples,” the resurrected Jesus appeared to him in a blinding light. He was blinded and led into Damascus where he was to await further instructions. A disciple in Damascus named Ananias also got a visit from Jesus, who told him to go find Paul, because he would be God’s “chosen instrument to proclaim [his] name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.” God even told Ananias to let Paul know how much he would suffer for Jesus. Ananias laid hands on Paul; Paul received the Holy Spirit; and he experienced a physical manifestation of scales falling from his eyes so he could see again, and then got baptized.

Paul does a little preaching defending Christ rather than persecuting his followers in Damascus, and then from Galatians 1, we know he went to Arabia at some point, then returned to Damascus for three years until he finally went before the early church leadership in Jerusalem. It’s hard to determine this exact timing, because Acts chapter 9 doesn’t say anything about when he went Arabia or when he came back to Damascus. It is during that time when Paul is getting grounded in the faith that Peter gets a calling from Christ to go eat with a Gentile named Cornelius. This must happen for Paul to minister to the Gentiles as Christ had commissioned him.

After Peter defends a ministry to the Gentiles, we see Barnabas goes to Tarsus to look for Paul to urge Paul to work with him in Antioch for about a year. It is from Antioch, somewhere around AD 46, that Paul and Barnabas initiate the first of several missionary journeys. Of course, Paul had several stops along the way to preach the Gospel, but I want to highlight three main events: Paul in Athens, Paul at Ephesus, and Paul’s trials.

Paul’s Ministry Highlights

On Paul’s second missionary journey, we find him in Athens waiting for Silas and Timothy to join him. Athens was one of the premier cities at the time, and Paul was quite active there. Not only was he “reasoning” in the synagogues with the Jews, but he was also out in the marketplace daily speaking with passers-by. At one point, a mixed group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers start debating him in the street, because he’s talking about something they’ve never heard, the resurrection of Christ. Because the Greeks loved to discuss new ideas, they invited Paul to the Aereopagus, where he made reference to an idol he’d seen with the inscription “To an Unknown God.” The Greeks had a whole pantheon of gods, but they wanted to make sure they didn’t miss anything. Paul used that idol as an object lesson to talk about the God (big G) they didn’t know yet, Yahweh, and his one and only son who rose from the dead. Some of those philosophers and several others became Christ followers because of his willingness to speak anywhere and at any time about the gospel.

A couple chapters later, at the beginning of Paul’s third missionary journey, we find him in Ephesus. He spent at least 2 ½ years preaching and teaching there, first in the synagogue for about 3 months before he got kicked out and took his followers to the lecture hall of Tyrannus. It seems like Ephesus was the shining jewel of Paul’s ministry. Paul did many miracles there, even to the point of Paul touching handkerchiefs and aprons that brought healing. He made quite a dent in the evil side of the spiritual world when several people burned their sorcery books. Even the people who made the Artemis idols were noting a decline in their business and rioted because of Paul’s preaching and teaching. The disciples feared that Paul might be killed if he tried to defend himself before the mob.

Paul moves on from there for a short time to minister elsewhere, but returns to Ephesus for a very teary farewell as he’s preparing to return to Jerusalem one last time. Paul gives a passionate address to the Ephesians, where he says “I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the good news of God’s grace” (Acts 20:24). He goes on to encourage the leadership there to be shepherds and overseers of God’s flock, which is where we get the clearest teaching and example of what church leadership is all about.

Once Paul arrives in Jerusalem, it doesn’t take long for the final “race” of his ministry to begin. He suspects he’ll probably be arrested when he gets there. He knows the road he’s on is filled with prison and hardship, but he presses on faithfully. He even receives a prophecy on his way back to Jerusalem to confirm that he would be arrested, and indeed he is. He appears before the Jewish leaders in the Sanhedrin, who no doubt are questioning his status as a pharisee, among other things. They can’t do anything with him, since the power to impose the death penalty rested with Rome, so Paul begins a series of appeals to the upper echelons of Roman leadership, because he was a Roman citizen and had that right. No regular Jew from Judea would have had that right. He was first brought before Felix, the governor of the region, who kept Paul in prison to the end of his term. When Felix was replaced with Festus, Paul appealed to him and recounted his ministry activities, but again, no one could prove the Sanhedrin’s charge against him. Festus wasn’t quite sure what to do with Paul at that point, but Paul made his decision easy: Paul appealed to Caesar himself for a hearing.

After that, Paul had to wait for King Agrippa to come to Caesarea to hear Paul’s second appeal. Paul gave a full account of his conversion and ministry, so much so that Agrippa was almost converted himself: “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28). Agrippa agrees that Paul had done nothing wrong and that Paul should have been set free, but when you appeal to Caesar, that trumps everything, and there’s no turning back at that point.

The book of Acts ends before we find out what happens to Paul’s appeal. It seems from the last couple verses of Acts that Paul was under house arrest in his own rented home, and “He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!”

Lessons from Paul’s Life

So, what are the lessons we can take from Paul’s ministry? First, as he did in Athens, look around and see what’s available to help you share the good news of Jesus. It may be objects, it may be events, or it could be something simple, like a beautiful landscape or something in nature. You don’t have to know all the answers to all the questions people may ask you, but you can speak passionately about what you believe and defend it from the heart.

Second, church leaders have an immense responsibility for caring for the spiritual lives of their congregations. Shepherding refers primarily to taking care of the physical and emotional needs of the congregation, while the overseer (in Greek, ἐπίσκοπος, from which we get the terms “episcopal” and later in Latin “bishop”) function has more to do with spiritual teaching and managing the affairs of the congregation. These are not necessarily functions performed by two different people. Every overseer should be a good shepherd, but not every shepherd would make a good overseer. The term “elder,” from Acts 20:17, 1 Peter 5, and Titus, is derived from a Greek word you all should be familiar with, πρεσβύτερος, from which we get the word Presbytery. It simply means “older,” but given its connection with leadership in the NT, it probably also implies “wiser” as well and a degree of responsibility for the well-being of the congregation.

Finally, most of us will probably never be in a position to defend our faith before kings or other political rulers, but Paul was always ready to give a defense of what we believe, just as Peter encouraged his readers to do (1 Peter 3:15). That defense may be as simple as “Jesus loves me, this I know,” or it may involve a more detailed argument from Scripture. You may not know the answer to every question that comes at you, but I’ll bet you know someone who does, and you can always say you’ll get back to them.

Conclusion

Peter and Paul are the two most prominent examples of church leadership we have in the NT, especially in the Gospels and Acts, and their surviving letters that make up most of the rest of the NT. Jesus wouldn’t let Peter’s repeated failures stop him from being a powerful force for the gospel, preaching the Pentecost sermon that initiated and ignited the church in Acts 2. Paul was quite the opposite of Peter, always seeming to choose his words carefully and being careful not let his tongue get ahead of his brain. Together, their writings represent 15 of the 27 books of the NT, and they are the two main leadership figures in the book of Acts, which recounts their stories.

God doesn’t really care whether we’re fishermen or a scholars. What he cares about is that we’re faithful with the gifts and abilities he’s given us, for his gifts and calling are without repentance: God doesn’t reconsider those gifts, but at times he may redirect you, as I’ve learned in my life. My prayer is that go from here this morning encouraged by the examples and the teaching that Peter and Paul have left for us, and that you will allow God to use you according to your own gifts and abilities. Amen.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My views are my own.

November 24, 2021

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

Filed under: 1 Peter,Government,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 6:17 am
Tags: , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

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

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

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

Peter emphasizes the intersectionality of faith and politics:

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

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

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

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

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.  For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.  Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.  Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

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

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

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

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

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

THE INTERSECTION OF MY FAITH WITH THE CONSTITUTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOW THE VACCINE MANDATE TRASHES THE DIGNITY OF HUMANITY

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

(1) Disability

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

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

(2) Major life activities

  • In general

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My opinions are my own.

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

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

July 26, 2012

The Mystery of Immersion (Baptism)

Filed under: 1 Peter,Acts,Baptism of Jesus,Colossians,Ecclesiology,Faith, Faithfulness,forgiveness,Immersion/Baptism,New Testament,Romans,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 5:59 am
Tags: , , , , ,

Author’s Note (12/10/2025): When I wrote this article in 2012, I sensed I was on the verge of connecting some ideas that I had been mulling over. As it turns out, I actually did make some very important connections between baptism, the blood of Christ, and forgiveness in this article, but I still wasn’t completely satisfied. After reading this again, it seems I was still on the fence by the time I finished this article.

But the Holy Spirit wasn’t done teaching me yet. In 2019, I wrote a follow-up to this article:

In that article, I finally put all the pieces together (or so I think) to understand baptism by immersion more completely. In that article, I describe my realization that Romans 6 is actually the climax of Paul’s arguments about justification by faith(fulness) in the first five chapters of Romans. Paul concludes Romans 6:23 with the familiar passage about “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.” THAT is the summary of the baptism/immersion in Romans 6! Baptism is our Calvary moment AND our resurrection moment all wrapped up into one simple act! It also is the basis for Paul’s statement in Romans 12:1 (right after the benediction that closes out his “introductory” argument in Romans 1 through 11): “Offer yourselves as a living sacrifice….” Baptism is that “living sacrifice” moment that starts the adventure in earnest.

If you’ve made it this far, then, I would encourage you to continue reading this article to see my initial train of thought, then read the Part Two article linked above to see the end (for now) result of my thought process. I hope this encourages you to dig deeper, read smarter, and draw closer. –SAS

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through the Greek NT again this year. I am constantly blown away by the truths God is revealing to me on at least a weekly basis, if not daily at times. On the one hand, my faith has been strengthened immensely by the journey, but on the other hand, after I think I’ve got some topic all figured out, God throws me a curve ball by raising new questions in my mind about what I believe and understand. None of these questions have ever raised any doubt in my mind about the lordship of Christ or the existence of God, but they do compel me to dig deeper to discover more profound truths. Lest I be misunderstood, don’t think that I’m onto some new teaching the church has never seen before: I think Paul and the other apostles knew much more about God and Jesus than any one man could ever uncover in a lifetime of study, although some have come close.


Some Questions about Immersion

One area that I have striven to understand is that of “immersion,” my translation of the Greek word βάπτισμα, which translators usually render “baptism.” The word itself comes from the Greek verb βάπτω plus an intensifying verbal suffix –ιζω. The intensifying suffix in my mind is something that should not be overlooked in understanding the word. Βάπτω means “I dip”, but the intensifier adds an important nuance: βαπτίζω = “I dip all the way” or “I immerse.” I was christened as an infant in the Presbyterian church, and I find value in that practice inasmuch as it serves as a dedication to the parents and the rest of the Christian community to help raise a child in the way of the Lord. But the infant still has to grow and make his or her own choices, so I don’t see it in any way as a guarantee of salvation or inclusion in the eternal kingdom of God.

That is precisely the concept about immersion that I have wrestled with over the years: Is it an absolute guarantee of salvation just because you willingly submit to it as an adult who understands the sacrament? Is there no other means by which we can enter the kingdom of heaven other than immersion? I’ve worked through many of these questions in other posts, and I’m convinced of the efficacy of immersion as an act of obedience at the minimum, but as I continue to reflect on the subject, new questions come to mind:

  • If, as some of my colleagues would say, immersion is absolutely essential, a sine qua non experience to be considered part of the body of Christ, then have we not limited God’s ability to save whom he wants to save?
  • If immersion is absolutely essential for the forgiveness of sins and entry into the kingdom, then is there some mystical transubstantiation of the water into the blood of Christ, since “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins”?

Putting God in Box

Whenever we make one act binding on a person who wants to become a Christ follower, we run the risk of becoming overly legalistic about it in the first place. Second, we also by default deemphasize other aspects of Christian faith which are equally important. Someone might say, “I’m a Christian because I got immersed at camp when I was a kid,” yet he cusses like a sailor, cheats on his wife, and drinks to excess every night. On the other hand, a man might study Scripture, come to Christ according to his own understanding, and lead others to Christ as well, but has only ever known a tradition of infant christening. If I were to say “Immersion is absolutely essential for salvation,” I would feel like I was putting God in a box and denying his power to “show mercy on whom [he] will show mercy.” If God can reverse the physical laws of nature by causing the earth to change its rotation, if God can suspend the law of Moses to allow David and his men to eat the grain dedicated to the priests, then God can welcome unimmersed believers into his eternal heavenly kingdom.

Requiring immersion as an absolute essential presents another problem in my mind: It implies that we have a perfect knowledge of the Scriptural teachings on salvation at least, and by default implies that perfect knowledge and praxis of a doctrine is required for salvation. Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians 13 that we know in part and prophesy in part. We don’t have perfect knowledge. Some things about God and how he operates in the world just cannot be known, and this leads into my second question: Just what is the mystery that is immersion?

Objective Truth or Subjective Mystery?

(Let me preface this section with this caveat: by “mystery,” I mean something something that cannot be known or explained by merely human reason, not necessarily a conundrum to solve. I’m using the term more like the modern day Orthodox church uses it, and as Paul used it in Ephesians.)

Here are some things I know for sure about immersion. Translations will be somewhat literal to stay close to the Greek.

Acts 2:38: Repent, and let each one of you be immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus Messiah into the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Forgiveness is a huge part of the experience of immersion. But there are other ways to experience forgiveness that are not directly linked to immersion, so immersion cannot be the only way to receive forgiveness (e.g., Matthew 6:12–15; Hebrews 9:11–28, esp. v. 22; 1 John 1:9).

Romans 6:3–4: Or don’t you know that we who have been immersed into Messiah Jesus have been been immersed into his death? We were therefore buried together with him through this immersion into death, in order that just as Messiah was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, likewise we also will walk in newness of life.

So the experience of immersion in Paul’s view in Romans is that it is linked to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. But Paul never mentions “forgiveness” in that chapter. The emphasis is on cleansing and purity.

Colossians 2:9–15: There are two allusions to blood in this passage that form an inclusio: circumcision and the cross. Immersion and forgiveness are tied together in the middle of the passage, along with the “cancelling” of the charge against us.

1 Peter 3:18–22: This is the trickiest of all passages. On the surface, it sounds like it is not the act itself that is important (“not the removal of dirt from the body”). But you still have to get immersed to make the “pledge.” Just as marriage vows have no weight without the wedding and marriage themselves, so the pledge is empty unless you demonstrate the faith to go through the water.

Here are the horns of the dilemma I find myself up against as I think about these things: On the one hand, if we are to ascribe to immersion an absolute salvific power, what is it about the act that gives it that power? If there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, and Paul says we are immersed into Christ’s death, then is there a transubstantiation of the waters of immersion into the blood of Christ, much like the Catholics believe about the eucharistic elements? Is the mystery of becoming one with Christ that our bodies are somehow in the waters of immersion transubtantiated into Christ’s body so that we have truly experienced both his death and resurrection? If immersion is more than just a symbol of our unity with Christ, but an actual salvific event, then there is truly a mystery and a greater power at work that our human minds may never be able to comprehend fully or explain adequately.

On the other hand, if the mystery of a salvific immersion lies in the transubstantiation of the water into blood or some other mysterious power, then I cannot in good conscience deny a similar power to the eucharistic elements, the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Table. After all, Jesus said, “This is my body…. This is my blood.” Jesus never said they were “symbols” as many in the Restoration Movement (my own affiliation) have purported. We have said they were symbols because we didn’t want to be too Catholic about it. I prefer to take Jesus’s words at face value. If he and the early church instituted weekly communion as Acts seems to suggest, then like salvific immersion, there is something more powerful to the act and the elements than just symbolism, wheat, and grapes.

As I grapple these “horns,” I am coming to the conclusion that to ascribe salvific power to immersion, which is the death and resurrection of Christ, while denying salvific power (by calling it a symbol) to the Lord’s Table, which is the body and blood of Christ, is a gross theological inconsistency. Either immersion and the Lord’s Table both have a mysterious salvific power, or they are both symbols that represent spiritual truths but do not effect them (and yes, I am using “effect” correctly as a verb there).

To Transubstantiate or Not to Transubstantiate

Now I do not believe that Christ is recrucified every time I partake of the of the bread and the cup. Yet I cannot escape the very direct statements of Jesus about the bread and the cup being his body and blood, respectively. I understand that the statements could be metaphorical at least, but the reality behind that seems too profound and has too much ultimate significance to abandon to the realm of metaphor. So while I do not think the bread or the cup transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ, I do prefer to consider there is some suprametaphorical mystery in the act of taking the bread and cup that transcends the physical elements. At the very least, the presence of the risen Lord at the Table whenever you remember the Lord’s sacrifice should put to rest that the elements are merely symbols. And if the Lord is present at the Table, those who partake may call on him for whatever needs are burdening their hearts. Even those who have been on the fence about being a Christ follower, if they recognize this deeper signification in the Lord’s Table, may partake and call upon the Lord for their own salvation.

Nor do I believe the waters of immersion transubstantiate into the blood of Christ. However, given the importance of immersion in the Scriptures, I do think it’s possible that another kind of transubstantiation takes place that I alluded to earlier. In identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in immersion, we experience the mystery of becoming one with Christ. I think I could fully embrace the concept that we are transubstantiated into the physical body of Christ on the one hand, experiencing his death, burial, and resurrection “in the heavenly realms” as it were. But when we are immersed, we also make the public signification that we are in fact Christ followers and part of the body of Christ universal, the fellowship of all the saints. If you’re not convinced of the latter, I’m not implying any judgment here. If you’re a Christ follower who has not been immersed, I for one am in no position to say that your salvation is in question. God knows your heart; he knows the journey you’ve taken with him; and I trust that he will lead you and me into all truth as we continue to follow Christ’s leading in our lives and study his Word diligently.

Conclusion

Salvation is not merely a point in time when we say we want to be a Christ follower, whether that is in the waters of immersion, at the mourner’s bench, or raising your hand with your head bowed in the pew. Salvation is a process that happens in our lives. If it were not a process, why would Paul say “With fear and trembling fulfill (κατεργάζομαι) your own salvation, for God, who is working in you, also wills and accomplishes good things” (Philippians 2:12b–13)? Our obedience allows God to accomplish his good will in our lives. That is another great mystery that I will perhaps explore at another time. For now…

Peace,

Scott

December 4, 2011

Immersion (Baptism) that Saves: 1 Peter 3:18–22

Filed under: 1 Peter,Biblical Studies,Diagrams,Greek,Immersion/Baptism,New Testament,Old Testament,Romans,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 8:15 am

I have a couple notes for blog readers before I get into the main post today.

  1. For all readers: Instead of customizing the hyperlinks or providing transliterations and pronunciations, I am going to start hyperlinking the first occurrence of each Greek and Hebrew word in my blog to the entry in http://www.blueletterbible.org. That Bible study site has numerous resources available, including a link to hear the Greek or Hebrew word pronounced and the option to get a complete concordance listing of all occurrences of the Greek or Hebrew word. If you’re not already familiar with the site, I trust you will find it useful and engaging. (I am not being compensated for promoting BlueLetterBible at this time.)
  2. For those readers who use the sentence diagrams: At least once a week, it seems like the search engine feature in WordPress lets me know that someone hit on my site by looking for a diagram of a particular verse. I am pleasantly surprised to find I’m not the only one who has an interest in diagramming, in spite of how much I griped about it in junior high. For those of you who use the diagrams, I would appreciate knowing what your interest is in them so that I can get a sense if I need to do anything different with them or provide a different kind of diagram. Are you just curious? Are you a student looking for help on an assignment? (If the latter, I trust you aren’t passing off my work as yours!) Are you a preacher looking to better explain the passage? Whatever your interest, please drop me a short note in the comments. There’s obviously some interest in them, and I’m happy to share the fruit of my labor with you.

Introduction

Growing up as a sprinkled Presbyterian, I was understandably intrigued when I came to understand my need for a personal relationship with Christ and discovered the concept of “believer’s baptism.” It was a completely new concept to me, as I had never been exposed to it before my high school years. In college, when I got involved with the restoration movement, I still had many questions about the practice when I went to that first meeting at 1633 Q Street (now a parking lot) just off the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus. That night, just a little over 30 years ago, I got shuffled off to the pastor’s office, where I met Terry & Kris Christlieb. I had several questions about baptism, and they answered them to my satisfaction that night, so much so that we invaded Capitol City Christian Church at 9 p.m., where I got immersed. I was sold from that point on.

I’ve had my ups and downs on immersion theology through the years. Is it an absolute necessity? Is it just a “work of the flesh”? When is the right time? Just what is the “effectiveness” of immersion when it comes to salvation? But when I ran across such passages as Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3:18–22, it was hard for me to diminish the importance of immersion in the life of a Christ-follower. And when I discovered the connection between Acts 2:38 and Matthew’s Last Supper account, I was convinced of the efficacy of immersion as part of the salvation and maturing experience of the Christ-follower.

1 Peter 3:18–22

Of all the passages on immersion, or baptism as many call it (βάπτισμα, βαπτίζω), 1 Peter 3:21 is the only one that comes out and says directly that immersion saves. Yet this gets overlooked so much, because those who are not convinced of the efficacy of immersion seem to think it means something other than what is plainly written on the page. But what is the author trying to communicate by connecting it to the Noahic flood? Is the flood what saves us, or the ark? The verse diagram in Figure 1 below places 1 Peter 3:21 in its larger context so that you can see what the connections are.

I want to jump down to 20b, where Peter says (my translation): “In the ark, a few, that is, eight people, were saved through water.” In this case, the water was destructive (see 2 Peter 2:5), but it had the power to save Noah by supporting the ark on its year-and-a-half voyage. The flood destroyed all living creatures except those on the ark and those that could already live in water, but the ark was the vessel that protected Noah, his family, and the other living creatures “through the water.”

Now for verse 21: The word for ark (κιβωτός) is feminine, but the relative pronoun that begins verse 21 is neuter, so it can’t refer to the ark. The most immediate antecedent to the relative pronoun is “water” (ὕδωρ; genitive is ὕδατος), which is neuter, so Peter is referring to the waters of the flood with this pronoun. So in verse 21, Peter says, “This water corresponds to immersion.” The word “corresponds to” (ἀντίτυπος) is actually an adjective in Greek that modifies βάπτισμα, so the phrase might be more accurately rendered, “This water is functional baptism” or more literally, “This water is typical baptism.”

Peter goes on to say that this baptismal water “now also saves you.” The “now also” is relative to the previous verse. Not only does the ark, then, typify salvation, but water does as well. Water is what destroyed sinful humanity, which is exactly what happens when someone is immersed into Christ. Romans 6:3–4 says, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death? We were therefore buried with him through immersion into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”

What I found interesting is that the part that follows “now also saves you” has two nominative case nouns. “Removal” (ἀπόθεσις) and “appeal” (ἐπερώτημα) are both nominative case, agreeing with the nominative case of βάπτισμα, so they are essentially appositives to βάπτισμα. Here’s how a literal translation might look: “This immersion now saves you, not the body-dirt removal immersion, but the clear-conscience-pledge to God immersion.” But this rendition is missing the most important part of the verse, the final phrase.

The last phrase of verse 21 parallels the “through water” at the end of verse 20. “Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” is the qualifier that gives the water its power to save. Just as the ark saved Noah and his family through the flood waters, the resurrection is what carries us through the act of immersion. Again, I refer you back to Romans 6:3–4, where this is made abundantly clear. So if I complete my literal translation with that phrase, it would look something like this: “This immersion now saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not the body-dirt removal immersion, but the clear-conscience-pledge to God immersion” (emphasis mine).

So immersion is really a two-way street to God. If we just get immersed for show (the “body-dirt removal immersion”), immersion is ineffective. God is not into rituals without substance. But if we come to the waters of immersion pledging ourselves to live for him with a clear conscience, he effects the power of the resurrection in immersion and destroys the old self. He renews us and rescues us from the wages of sin.

A quick note on βαπτίζω

Some have tried to argue that βαπτίζω does not mean “completely immerse,” because that is what the related word βάπτω means. But the –ίζω ending on βαπτίζω is an intensifier. It is quite similar, in sound and function, to the difference between the musical directions forte (loud) and fortissimo (very loud). So βαπτίζω is an intense form of dipping, or immersion. I don’t have to time to list the many verbs in Greek that indicate a similar pattern, but I assure you, they are quite common in the NT.

Conclusion

So immersion is certainly not just a work of the flesh. Just as the ark supported and sustained Noah and his family through the flood, so too the resurrection sustains us through the act of immersion. But beware of the “dunk ’em and ditch ’em” philosophy. Noah and his family certainly did not sit idly by on the ark for a year and a half. They worked hard daily to keep the animals and themselves fed and healthy. Immersion is not a terminal point in the life of a Christ-follower. On the contrary, it is a watershed moment (pun intended) where we tell God, “I’m sold out for you.”

Peace,

Scott Stocking

Figure 1: Diagram for 1 Peter 3:18–22 (Greek and English)

Website Powered by WordPress.com.