Sunday Morning Greek Blog

June 24, 2012

Scandalous Living

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

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!

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

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

May 14, 2012

“Other Duties as Assigned” (Luke 17:7–10)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Luke Gospel of,Work — Scott Stocking @ 6:14 am

Last month, I blogged briefly on what the Scriptures say about work. So I’ve been a little sensitive to that topic when it comes up in my daily reading. I was struck recently by Luke 17:7–10, where Jesus says, in so many words, “Don’t expect a huge fanfare of appreciation when all you’ve done is what is normally expected of you.” It didn’t take me too long to jump from that to my own job description as an Education and Curriculum Writer for my company. My main job is to take materials prepared by subject matter experts (SMEs) and develop Web-based training and other materials for our eventual approval as an organization that can offer continuing education credits. I have some advanced training in adult educational theory, so I’d like to think I’m ideally suited to the task.

Having spent several years working from home or working more-or-less independently as an adjunct professor, no one really had a claim on the rest of my time other than family. I was given a job to do, and I did it to the best of my ability. But now, after having been working for a company for the past 16 months, I think I have finally gotten adjusted to having a boss and understanding how I fit into the whole scheme of things as an employee. Lately, because we lost our data analyst at Christmas time and because I have a pretty strong math and Excel background, I got handed the task dealing with the data and putting it into the necessary templates in Word for our purposes. I was able to develop a couple VBA macros for Word and Excel that made the task almost embarrassingly easy, creating, on average, twenty-five six-page, personalized documents from the data in about ten minutes. And if something needed to be tweaked in all documents after they were created? Forget about it! I had learned how to do macros for that as well.

Now there’s a part of me that thinks I deserve a little extra commendation (read “pay raise”) for taking on this task that really was not in my field of expertise. But I was reminded of that humbling little phrase in my job description (and my coworkers’ job description and most likely your job description): “Other duties as assigned.” I had not written much of any computer code since my college days 30 years ago, long before Bill Gates became a household name. I had toyed with macros in some of my editing work, but not nearly to the extent that I have achieved in the past year. One of my coworkers loaned me her book on VBA for Microsoft applications, and that has been a life saver many times. But more than once, when I attempted to execute some piece of code, it just wouldn’t work like I thought it should. I think through this experience, more than any other, I have really come to appreciate the power of prayer.

Whenever I would get stuck on trying to get a piece of code to work, I would always lift it up to God. I would pray for understanding or to find the answer online or in the VBA reference book. Without fail, within an hour of reaching out to God for help, he directed me to answer or revealed to me the nature of the problem. Code is nothing but pure logic (in spite of the occasional Schroedinbugs), so to whom could I turn when I got stuck but the creator of logic himself?

This experience is just another in a long string of divine confirmations that God has me where he wants me. I just have to keep telling myself that that is a far greater benefit or reward than the praise of my bosses or coworkers or any pay raises or bonuses (I won’t turn any of that down, though!). Becoming the go-to guy for the data was nothing more than “other duties as assigned,” so “I am an unworthy servant; I have done what I ought to do.”

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

May 14, 2011

How Near the End?

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Luke Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 12:04 pm

As I read through Luke 21 last week, I could not help but think of the recent earthquake and tsunami disaster in northern Japan. In Luke 21:11, Jesus warns that “great earthquakes” (σεισμοί μεγάλοι seismoi megaloi /sighss-MOI meh-GAH-loi/) will be one of the signs of the end. Luke 21:25–26 (my translation) says: “There will be signs (σημεῖα, plural of σημεῖον sēmeion /say-MAY-on/) in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth [there will be] anguish of the nations in perplexity of the sound and surge (σάλος salos /SAH-loss/) of the sea… for the powers/works of heaven will be shaken” (σαλεύω saleuō /sah-LOO-oh/; note the word comes from the same root as σάλος). Now obviously, the Richter Scale had not been developed in biblical times, so I don’t think Jesus was predicting modern terminology, but perhaps the term “great earthquake” was borrowed from the Bible.

The modern technical term “great earthquake” refers to an earthquake of magnitude 8.0 or greater according to the United States Geological Survey (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=24). Looking at the recent history of great earthquakes reveals that they seem to come in a cycle of every 30–40 years. Before the Christmas 2004 earthquake in Indonesia, the previous recorded great earthquake had been 1965 in Alaska, and the one before that was a year earlier in Alaska as well. And of course, we can’t forget the “surge of the sea,” Katrina, which left an indelible impression on the city and residents of New Orleans, not to mention other major hurricanes and floods in recent years.

I have always been tempted to see the judgment of God in these events and other natural disasters. But creation—every microbe, ant, butterfly, bird, cat, dog, human, horse, elephant, mountain, and ocean, not to mention the earth, and the universe itself—is subject to decay. This decay is part of the overall judgment that came down in Genesis 3 and later in the “global” flood of Genesis 6–9. Before anyone starts questioning me about how the water of the earth could cover the Himalayas, let me just say that I’m one who holds to the antediluvian Pangaea theory, that is, the earth as God originally created it was all one land mass whose topography was nothing as it is today. During the flood event, Pangaea was divided, causing the waters of the deep to come forth (perhaps the ancients’ way of saying the ocean poured in when the land masses separated) and initiating what we know today as continental drift. Mountains are formed by the collision of land masses, and the earthquakes we experience today are evidence that the process is ongoing.

The “rim of fire” around the Pacific Ocean (the presence of numerous volcanoes from Mt. St. Helens up to Alaska and through its Aleutian Islands and down the east coast of Asia into the Indonesian archipelago) should not surprise us, then. Have you ever taken a wet beach ball and spun it around? You know the water flies off in every direction. Now magnify that to global proportions. As the earth rotates on its axis in an easterly direction, the water of the Pacific Ocean is like that water on a beach ball, except that earth’s gravitational field keeps the water from flying out into space. Imagine the entire weight of the Pacific Ocean being thrust against the east coast of Asia, Japan, and the Philippines. If continents are not rock solid, that’s going to cause some moving and shaking on both shores of the Pacific. (This is why some think part of California may eventually fall into the ocean, because it’s being pulled away from the North American Plate.) The strongest currents in the world are along the eastern coast of Asia and Australia, because the rotation of the earth forces the water to flow that way. The deepest trench in the world is located at a place where the small Philippine Plate is separating from the Pacific Plate.

But enough of my amateurish geophysics: the point I’m getting at is that God’s “final” judgment on the world and humanity began at the fall in Genesis 3. “Natural” disasters are a part of this world we’re otherwise blessed to live on, and there aren’t too many more places out there in space where we could live without substantial technological adaptations. We often ask God, “Why do you allow such calamity?” He’s already told us (in so many words): “Because you live in a fallen world.” But he also says, “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33, TNIV). Do people die deaths we think they don’t deserve in these natural disasters? Yes, but people who don’t deserve to die pass from this life all the time by “natural causes.” Death is tragic regardless of its cause and regardless of the innocence or guilt of the deceased, but Christ followers know someone who has risen, victorious over death, who is readily waiting for us to claim the eternal life he has promised.

So what do we have to look forward to? Luke 21 is too long for me to copy into this blog post, but know that on top of all the “natural disasters” coming our way, we’ve got persecution and trouble coming our way as well if we are Christ followers. Let me just leave you with a few key verses from Luke 21 (TNIV) that give hope in a world full of trouble, because no one says it better than Jesus:

14–15: “But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.”

19: “Stand firm, and you will win life.”

27–28: “At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

35–36: “For [all these natural disasters] will come on all those who live on the face of the whole earth. Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”

Εἰρήνη! Peace!

May 1, 2011

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

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Luke Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of — Scott Stocking @ 8:23 am

I have an important message for all of us husbands, former, current, and future: for all the times our former, current, and future wives (respectively) said (or will say) things to us about their friends, jobs, or something that needed fixing in the house, and we quickly forgot those things until we were reminded that we weren’t good listeners, I grant general absolution. Before you start cheering, you former, current, and future wives, because for all those times we former, current, and future husbands (respectively) told you (or will tell you) things about the car, the electronics, or the computer but you failed to heed, leading to expensive repairs, I grant you general absolution as well. And need I say anything about what we tell our kids? You’re forgiven, kids, but don’t forget next time!

Have I unsettled you yet? Great! Know this, however: when you fail to take heed of things that someone else thinks are important for you to know, you are in prestigious company, namely, the company of the twelve apostles.

Three times in Luke’s Gospel (9:21–27, 43b–45; 18:31–34) Jesus tells his apostles, “Oh, by the way, I’m going to be turned over to the Jewish rulers and Roman authorities to be beaten, tortured, and killed, but I’ll come back in few days.” You would think that the first time that the man whom you most admire in the world drops this bomb on you, there would at least be some reaction from the apostles. (Actually in Matthew 16:21ff, Peter does rebuke Jesus for saying this, but Jesus turns around and promptly returns the rebuke in stronger terms, calling Peter “Satan,” but for whatever reason, Luke doesn’t record that in 9:21–27.) But like a stealth bomber at an Air Force air show, the statement zips right over their heads, and they never considered it again, until….

In Luke 9:21–27 (which is parallel to Matthew’s account in Matthew 16), Jesus first makes the statement, but then immediately begins talking about more stuff that we might be prone to forget: stuff like denying ourselves, taking up our crosses, and being willing to follow Jesus to death if necessary. So one might understand why his first statement went unnoticed. It reminds me a little of Moses in Exodus 3:5–14. God makes eight “I” statements to Moses about who he is and what he intends to do, most of which are miraculous or spectacular, but all Moses could key in on was the last statement: “By the way, Moses, I’m sending you to make sure Pharaoh knows I’m the one doing all this.” Moses’ response is not, “Wow, God, I’m so grateful to have your complete and total support and protection as I go back to the nation where I’m number one on the ‘Most Wanted’ list. I’ll get right on that.” Instead, Moses turns the attention back on himself. “Who am I?” (I can just see God giving Moses a Gibbs’ slap to the back of the head.)

Even if we take Peter’s response in Matthew into consideration, the point is that there is no apparent sadness among the apostles after Jesus says he’s going to die. When we get news that a loved one has cancer or was in a serious car wreck, are we, like Peter, more concerned about how this messes up our own agenda, or are we genuinely concerned about the well-being of our loved one? You see the point?

According to Luke, the apostles had eight days to process this first prediction (Luke 9:28) before something even more amazing took place, but only three of the apostles were in on that Transfiguration event. In that event, Jesus spoke about his coming death with Moses and Elijah, but again, the three in the inner circle are clueless, but understandably so. Luke 9:32 says the disciples were βεβαρημένοι ὕπνῳ (bebarēmenoi hypnō /beh-bah-ray-MEH-noi HOOP-no/ ‘burdened with sleep’), but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t because the conversation between three of Judaism’s most amazing men was boring! The sleepiness seems to be divinely induced, because in the next breath, they become “fully awake” (διαγρηγορήσαντες diagrēgorēsantes /dee-ah-gray-goh-RAY-sahn-tess/) and have once again completely missed the talk of their Lord’s impending death. Instead, Peter wants to build a booth, as if that will put off Jesus’ sacrifice.

It is no accident, then, that Jesus’ second prediction of his death comes right after this Transfiguration event. I like the way Jesus puts it in 9:44: Θέσθε ὑμεῖς εἰς τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τοὺς λόγους τούτους (thesthe hymeis eis ta ōta hymōn tous logous toutous literally, ‘you yourselves place in your ears these words’). Usually when a command is given in Greek, as in English, you don’t have to use the pronoun “you,” because the subject is implied. But we know when we hear the pronoun “you” in an English command, the person giving the command means business. The same goes for the Greek here. Jesus expressly focuses on his disciples, because he wants them to know this. He would be delivered over into the hands of men, but he says nothing in this instance of his resurrection.

Jesus says this, though, knowing that the disciples won’t get it. The very next verse says that the disciples “didn’t understand” (ἀγνοέω agnoeō /ah-gnaw-EH-oh/ ‘to be ignorant’; same root for the word “agnostic”) and that the meaning of the words was “hidden” (παρακαλύπτω parakalyptō /pah rah kah LOO ptoh/) from them. Jesus is preparing his disciples for the worst, but if Peter’s response in Matthew is any indication, he does not want the disciples focusing on his impending death. He wants them to stay focused on ministry in the here and now. (I think this is one of the reasons Jesus teaches against worrying; worrying focuses on things over which we have no control, and we fail to live in the here and now as God wants us to.)

In Luke 18:31–34, as Jesus and his disciples are on their way to Jerusalem, he again predicts his death, and again, the Twelve fail to “understand” (συνίημι syniēmi /soo-NEE-ay-mee/) because the meaning is “hidden” (κρύπτω kryptō /KROO-ptoh/), but by this time, I’d have to think that the disciples were suspecting something unusual was in the works, even if they didn’t comprehend it completely. It isn’t until the penultimate verses of Luke (24:45–49) that Jesus, just after his resurrection, finally reveals to them the meaning of all that talk of his death that had remained hidden to them until that point. At that point, they finally had their “Aha!” moment and could truly and fully rejoice, because their knowledge and understanding were made complete.

Maybe that’s why many Christians (including myself) seem to “go through the motions” at times, because it hasn’t hit home yet just exactly what God is doing in our lives. We’ve been reading the book The Christian Atheist in Wednesday night class. The subtitle for the book is “Believing in God but Living Like He Doesn’t Exist.” I wonder if a better title might be The Christian Agnostic: Christians believe that God exists, but like the disciples in these prediction stories, we just haven’t figured out yet how God is working in our lives or what he’s really saying, and we’re afraid to trust.

I think a strong case could be made here for regular Bible reading as well. Some Christians complain that the Bible is too hard to understand in places, so they don’t want to read it. But how many times have those of us who have read through Scripture more than once come across passages that seem brand new to us? We know we’ve read those passages before, but for whatever reason, they just didn’t stick. But at just the right time, if we are faithful in reading his Word, God will reveal to us those things we need to know for our encouragement and strengthening. And if we don’t understand something right away, we shouldn’t worry: Jesus promises in Luke 12:11–12 that the Holy Spirit will teach us what we need to know and say when we need to know it and say it. That will be much easier to do if we’ve read our assignments ahead of time!

Other Musings

I don’t have time to explore this in depth in today’s entry, but after reading the parable of the 10 minas in Luke 19:11–27, I asked myself if the man who made himself king of a distant country is in fact Jesus in the story. I did a cursory reading of Blomberg’s interpretation of this parable (and its parallel in Matthew 25:14–30) in Interpreting the Parables, but he seems to think the element of the story of the man going off to be made king is extraneous to the core message of the parable. Still, I think something can be made of the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees wanting to kill Jesus, and the execution of those who did not want the man to be king can be taken as judgment against those who reject Jesus’ lordship. The parable is rather harsh in this way, but it certainly warrants further exploration. Blomberg cites Josephus to explain this particular aspect of the parable:

This second parable closely parallels the details of the trip of Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, to Rome in 4 b.c. to receive imperial ratification of his hereditary claim to rule Judea, along with the Jewish embassy which opposed him and Archelaus’s subsequent revenge on the Judeans (cf. Josephus Ant. 17:299–323, Bell. 2:80–100).

April 24, 2011

Lost and Found

Filed under: Greek,Luke Gospel of,New Testament,Repentance — Scott Stocking @ 7:42 am

God never has accidents. This is not to say that God “controls” everything in such a way as to make free will a farce. Nor does this imply that God necessarily chooses to know all the free will choices everyone will make in the future: if he did, this would also bring free will into question, because nothing then could happen contrary to his knowledge of the future. (If C.S. Lewis is correct in Screwtape Letters, God sees past, present, and future in his “Now.”) All this to say that I think it is no accident that my reading this Resurrection Sunday is the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11–32). With apologies to the Olympic speed skating champion of the same name, I’m going to call this lost son Apollo, from the Greek ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi /ah POL loo mee/ ‘I destroy’, ‘I lose’).

To set the background of the story, I noticed a few things as I was reading. The one thing that sticks out most prominently to me is that there are three different Greek words used for the workers in the story:

  1. μίσθιος (misthios /MISS thee os/ [/th/ as in “thin”; always this way in Greek]), which means ‘hired hand’ (similar to the Greek word μίσθος (misthos /MISS thoss/ ‘pay’, ‘reward’)
  2. δοῦλος (doulos /DOO loss/) and its related verb δουλεύω (douleuō /doo LYOO oh/), ‘slave’ or ‘servant’ and ‘I slave’ or ‘I serve’.
  3. παῖς (pais /piess/ [like the word “pie” with an /s/ instead of a /z/ sound]) ‘servant’, ‘child’, ‘boy’, ‘girl’.

I can relate to the story of the Prodigal Son all too well, but not in the way you might think. In my adult life, I have known several times when God was calling me to do something or warning me not to do something, but did not always recognize what he was trying to tell me. In 1981, after I graduated from high school, I knew God wanted me at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. God brought several people into my life in my four years there who helped solidify my foundation in the faith. However, in 1983, as I was loading up to move back to UNL for the school year, I felt an incredible pull to stay in Omaha and not return to UNL for that school year. There is a part of me that still wishes I would have heeded that call: I wound up in one of the worst relationships of my life that caused me (and her) great heartache. However, out of the ashes of that failure to discern God’s will, I also met a man who would become one of my best friends and mentors, and who still is today. Through him and his wife at the time, I was encouraged to attend Lincoln (Illinois) Christian Seminary. In 1987, when I packed up my Chevy S10 with pretty much everything I owned, I knew without a doubt that God wanted me in seminary in Illinois.

But somewhere during my 23 years in Illinois, I got “lost.” I won’t go into details, because the choices I made were intensely personal. Yet God has blessed me and prepared me in so many ways for where I am today, that I cannot imagine my life having taken another course. (Well, I can, but like Aslan said in the Chronicles of Narnia [I think it was in The Horse and His Boy], “It’s not permitted for you to know what might have been,” or something to that effect.) At one point, perhaps five or six years ago, I started feeling the tug to come back to Nebraska. I attributed it to homesickness, but I know now that God had indeed begun the process of calling me home. I was not “spending my possessions on wasteful living,” but I knew I didn’t have my financial priorities in order, going into debt when I had no prospects for a decent job in Illinois.

In the last two years, after my wife filed for divorce from me, I found myself feeling very much like Apollo in a far off land. I had been trying on and off for several years to find full-time employment. The editing work I had became steady, but the pay was woefully late. At every turn, I was turned down for positions for which I was adequately or more than adequately qualified. The best I could do was to maintain some part-time teaching and substitute teaching assignments. In the year or so before moving back to Omaha last September, I began hearing the Nebraska Cornhusker fight song playing in my head, even when my cell phone wasn’t ringing. I was flat broke, and the best job I could come up with was $100/week preaching at a congregation of less than 10 and about $150/week part-time at the IGA. I was broke, at rock bottom, and I felt as Apollo did (and not without cause), that most people were better off than me.

I had become a δοῦλος to my stubbornness to remain in Illinois near my kids. I had no money, no vehicle, and no prospects for gainful employment. I fought tooth and nail to find employment (some weeks submitting more than a dozen résumés for professional jobs, not to mention the countless near-minimum-wage jobs) to keep me near my kids, but still, “There Is No Place Like Nebraska” kept ringing in my ears. It was inevitable: I had to return “home.” I knew job prospects were better here, and even though my parents didn’t have a family business that I could jump into as a μίσθιος, I knew I stood a better chance of being a μίσθιος for someone else, and I could stay with my parents until I got back on my feet. And that is exactly what happened: My first full business day back in Omaha, I got hired for a FT temp position at West Corporation. What I learned there directly related to the FT permanent job I have now, a job that pays better than any other job I’ve ever had, and a job that stretches me to use all of my God-given skills and talent. I have truly been blessed by heeding God’s call, even if it means I am separated from my kids by the miles. But I have to trust that God has brought me here for a reason yet undisclosed, and that I am preparing the way for my kids to reunite with me at some point in the future.

Now that you have my testimony, I have a few more comments about the parable itself. One of my favorite songs of all time is “When God Ran,” the story of the Prodigal being greeted joyously by his father, who ran to meet him in the distance. That is what God the Father does when we return to him. Apollo was welcomed back with great fanfare. I have been blessed to have the support of my family here in my months of transition, but I think sometimes we overlook the lessons from the son who stayed home and slaved (his words, δουλεύω) for his father, complaining that he never once got even a goat to celebrate with his friends. In fact, when he heard the celebration coming in from the field, he called one of the “servants” (παῖς) to ask him what was going on. Notice here first of all that the servant does not have a possessive pronoun associated with it, so he probably isn’t the elder son’s servant. He’s not one of the hired hands (μίσθιος) either. However, the word παῖς can also mean ‘child’ (male or female); but again, without the possessive pronoun, we can’t say for sure it was one of the elder son’s children. I tend to think it was a child, though, rather than a slave (δοῦλος), because of the answer (and I embellish here): “Uncle Apollo has come home, and grandpa’s throwing a party!”

The son complains, but the father’s answer I think gets overlooked all too often. No, not the answer about “My son was dead but now is alive; my son was lost but now is found.” I’m talking about the verse before that, verse 31: “My child, you are always with me, and everything that is mine is yours.” If the father in the story represents God the Father, then should we not take this message to heart as well? We have the riches of God at our disposal; all we need to do is ask.

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3, emphasis mine). This Resurrection Sunday, I celebrate my life resurrected, for I had become as dead in Illinois, and now am alive again in Nebraska; I had lost my way in Illinois, but have found it again in Omaha. Even so, my life here is nothing compared to the eternal reward that awaits me in his glorious kingdom.

Εἰρήνη Peace! And have a blessed Resurrection Sunday!

April 17, 2011

Guarding against Yeast

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Luke Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 3:01 pm

Luke 12:1 offers some interesting grist for this blogger’s mill this morning. The chapter begins with Jesus telling his disciples: “Guard (προσέχω, prosechō) yourselves from the yeast (ζύμη, zumē ‘leaven’, ‘yeast’), which is hypocrisy, of the Pharisees,” which represents the literal word order in the Greek text. It is punctuated in the UBS 3rd and 4th editions to emphasize that “yeast” and “hypocrisy” are in an appositive relationship. Of this, I have no doubt. But the writings of Scripture in their original hand almost certainly did not have punctuation, let alone word spaces. Papyrus and other epigraphic surfaces were precious, and the writers didn’t waste space with punctuation. Perhaps I’m overanalyzing here, but there are times when it is appropriate to be suspicious of punctuation in the Greek text. I have, after all, written a 20-page paper about a comma in Acts 2:42, but I promise I will not spend 20 pages on the comma here.

There are two ways the passage could be read, and I will make a quick comment on the difference before moving on. Most English translations render the verse similar to the NIV/TNIV: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” In this translation, translators move what they consider to be the appositive phrase, “which is hypocrisy,” to the end of the sentence. But word order in Greek is often significant. What if the appositive phrase is not just “which is hypocrisy,” but “which is the hypocrisy of the Pharisees” (i.e., what if there shouldn’t be a second comma)? Then the passage takes on a subtle nuance: “Guard yourselves from yeast, which is the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.”

Now I don’t want to imply here that the real substance “yeast” is inherently evil or bad for you (any dieticians out there are welcome to chime in on any nutritional properties of yeast). Nor do I want to say that bread made with yeast is bad, because Jesus calls himself “The Bread (ἄρτος artos) of Life” in John’s Gospel, but stick with me for a minute and I’ll come back to that. I think I am on solid ground to suggest that Jesus is not talking about yeast itself, but its properties. Most of us know that yeast is added to bread to give it more “volume” and to soften the texture. Unleavened bread, what many of us in the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ use for our weekly celebration of the Lord’s Table, is dry and flat. Some congregations use the Jewish unleavened matzo crackers for the same purpose. Jews had to rid their houses of yeast at the first Passover, not because it was an unclean food, but because they didn’t have time for the “fluff and flavor” before they escaped Egypt.

Yeast “bloats” the dough, makes the final product less dense, but does add some flavor to the product. I believe Jesus is speaking here of yeast in the context of Passover. The hypocrisy of the Pharisees (for which yeast is a symbol in Luke 12:1) is that they were adding requirements to the law that weren’t essential to the core principles of the law. In some cases, they bloated the law, adding more to it than was required. For example, in the previous chapter (Luke 11:38), the Pharisees were amazed that Jesus did not “immerse” (βαπτίζω baptizō) his hands, (presumably his hands are meant and not his whole body, although the text does not say that specifically) as was their custom, even though, according to Craig Keener in the IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, this was not a requirement of the Old Testament law. He had also issued several warnings (“woes”; see earlier blog on that topic in Matthew) to Pharisees and teachers of the law at the end of the previous chapter for adding burdens to the people.

The Pharisees often soften the law in places as well, but typically this happens when the money trail leads back to them. In Mark 7:11, Jesus condemns ––the Pharisees for nullifying the commandment to honor your father and mother so they could take the Korban into the Temple treasury.

So those warnings are fresh in the minds of his disciples when Jesus speaks to them in Luke 12:1. Jesus is, in one statement, giving his disciples some reassurance that his harsh words to the Jewish rulers (one of them mentions Jesus’ “hubris” for confronting the Pharisees and teachers of the law even though Jesus was their guest at dinner!), but also preparing them for his teaching about whom to fear in the first part of chapter 12.

Jesus’ ministry was all about simplifying and restoring what the Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the law had mucked up over the years. Love God. Love your neighbor. Act justly. Show mercy. Repent. Have faith. Forgive. Fear God. I am speaking to myself with this next statement as much as I am speaking to others: “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

I said I would return to Jesus’ statement about being the Bread of Life. Jesus does use this statement about himself, but it comes on the heels of the feeding of the 5000+, and he directly references that event in the pericope leading up to his statement. But he also uses the more general word for food in that section, βρῶμα (brōma), so it is fairly clear to me that he is not referencing the leavened bread that the 5000+ ate for their lunch, but is using “bread” as a symbol for “food” (the technical name for that kind of figure of speech is synecdoche /sin EK doe key/, the part represents the whole). Johannes Behm, in his article on ἄρτος in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 1, pp. 477–78) says the phrase has no parallel in Jewish literature. He also says that some ancient Greek writers still distinguished wheat bread from barley bread (μᾶζα maza, could this be matzo?).

Peace

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.