Sunday Morning Greek Blog

March 13, 2022

Temptations Lose Their Power (Luke 4:1‒13)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Deuteronomy,Exodus,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,James,Life of Christ,Luke Gospel of,Old Testament,Prayer,Spiritual Warfare,Temptation,Textual Criticism — Scott Stocking @ 11:44 am
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Author’s Note: This message was preached at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, Nebraska, March 6, 2022. The text has been lightly edited with the addition of section headings. I was not recording audio files of my messages at that time.

I preached the message again on March 9, 2025. The new audio file is from that date.

It’s the oldest persistent and scariest challenge in the world, and one that very few have ever navigated with 100 percent success. Men and women who have done great things in their lives have lost it all because one time out of the hundreds or thousands of times they’ve dealt with this challenge, they failed horribly, miserably, and humiliatingly. Whether it was a moment of pride, lust, greed, or desperation, that one moment of failure was enough to erase and “cancel” all the good and great things someone ever accomplished.

The Roots of Temptation

By now, you’ve probably guessed what that oldest challenge is: temptation. We see it from the earliest chapters in the Bible, while Adam and Eve are still in a pristine paradise in the garden, clear through the Old Testament, and even into the New Testament story line. In Genesis 3, we see the primary elements of temptation in Eve’s encounter with the serpent: “the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom.”[1] John confirms this definition in his first letter (1 John 2:16) in slightly different words: “For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.[2]”

Examples of Temptation

Old Testament

We could, unfortunately of course, provide several other examples of temptation in both testaments, but I want to highlight a couple other ones to clarify what temptation is and is not. For example, later in Genesis, not once, not twice, but three times the patriarchs mislead the king of a foreign country about the nature of their respective relationships with their wives. Abraham does it twice, and Isaac once. These failures ostensibly came about because the men had some measure of fear of what these foreign kings might do, but that was no excuse in God’s eyes. And let’s not forget about Joseph when Pharaoh’s wife pursues him. He put his own life at risk by fleeing the scene of temptation.

Fast forwarding to the kingdom era, we of course have the story of David and Bathsheba, where David goes out on the rooftop of his palace and sees a beautiful woman bathing. Not only does he have her brought to the palace to take advantage of her, but when he realizes he got her pregnant, he tries to “frame” her husband for the pregnancy. Of course, this utterly fails, as Uriah has more integrity than David, and David has him put on the front lines of battle to a certain death. One moral failing leads to another, which is ultimately exposed by Nathan the prophet.

New Testament

One final example of temptation is that of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts, the couple who misrepresented the money they earned from a property sale and both wound up dead for lying to the church about it. They could have given whatever they wanted to and kept whatever they wanted to, but they tried to fool church and paid the ultimate price.

I believe each of these stories represent each of the three elements of temptation individually that we saw in Eve’s thinking and John’s epistle. But before we get too much further into this, it’s important that we look at the words the Bible uses for “temptation” so we can get a better understanding of its meaning and application.

Temptation and Testing: The Word Study

[Professor's Tip: Normally, I would do a word study in the original language, but since there are only two related Greek words (noun and verb) and one Hebrew word dedicated to the concept, a study of translation principles is more in order.]

Now even though I gave several examples of temptation from the Old Testament, the verb “tempt” (πειράζω peirazō) and its noun “temptation” (πειρασμός peirasmos) are rarely if ever found in English translations of the OT. Neither the New International Version nor the English Standard Version nor the New Revised Standard Version have those English words at all in the OT. The New King James Version translates the Hebrew word (נסה nāsāh) as “tempt” or “tempted” in four verses, three of which are related to Jesus’s responses to the devil in the temptation narrative we’ll look at in a moment. The reason I bring this up is because by comparing the NKJV with the other three translations I mentioned, we see that the other way the Hebrew (and in the NT, the Greek) words are translated: “test.”

The Difference Between “Test” and “Tempt”

So why do three of the versions I mentioned use “test” instead of “temptation” for the same Greek or Hebrew word? Well, as I tell my students when they ask me questions like that, the answer is “context, context, context.” If you follow the use of the words in their respective story settings, you find that “testing” has to do with the relationship between God and humans. The general thrust of the verses in question goes one of three ways: either God is testing his people to see how they respond, or the people are testing God by NOT doing what he’s commanded them to do, or one person is testing another’s character. And consistent with the concept of testing, sometimes there’s a judgment or “grade” on how we responded to the test.

“Temptation” is a subset of testing. That is, all temptations are tests, but not all tests are temptations. The word “temptation” is used by these English translation committees to indicate a situation in which some personified evil power or influence is at work. James 1:13–15 clarifies this for us:

13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.[3]

Our own modern English dictionaries seem to confirm this distinction as well. Merriam-Webster says “tempt” means “to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain,” “to induce to do something,” or its synonym “provoke.”[4] However, the word gurus at Merriam-Webster tell us that the use of the word “tempt” to mean “to make trial of” or to “test” (i.e., how the word is used in the King James Version) is now obsolete.

So, to sum up where we’re at: testing happens between God and man or from man to man. Temptation happens when an evil one or evil desire holds our attention. I haven’t forgotten about my sermon title, “Temptations Lose Their Power”; we’ll get to that soon. And no, there will NOT be a quiz afterwards!

OT Background for Jesus’s Temptation Narrative

Let’s get back to Scripture, then, and look at the passages that set us up for passage about Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness.

In Exodus 17, not long after the Jews had crossed the Red Sea on dry land, one of many grumbling episodes broke out against Moses. This is the first time we see the Hebrew word for “test” in the OT, so it’s worth taking a quick look at the text:

The whole Israelite community set out from the Desert of Sin, traveling from place to place as the Lord commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink. 2 So they quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water to drink.”

Moses replied, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the Lord to the test?”

3 But the people were thirsty for water there, and they grumbled against Moses. They said, “Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to make us and our children and livestock die of thirst?”

4 Then Moses cried out to the Lord, “What am I to do with these people? They are almost ready to stone me.”

5 The Lord answered Moses, “Go out in front of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6 I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel. 7 And he called the place Massah  and Meribah  because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the Lord saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”[5]

Notice here that Moses, at least, passes the test. He’s commanded to strike the rock, and indeed he does. The people, however, not so much. Now if you’re scratching your head and saying, “Wait a minute, I thought Moses got in trouble for that one,” you might be thinking of the similar account toward the end of the wilderness wanderings in the book of Numbers, where Moses was commanded to SPEAK to the rock, but STRUCK it twice instead, and consequently lost his free pass to the Promised Land. Moses failed that one. So, let’s ask an obvious question at this point: If you’re stuck in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights, which of these two stories of a Bible hero would you want on your mind to survive your time of testing?

Well, Deuteronomy 6 answers that question for us, and these verses are the sources for two of Jesus’s three responses in the wilderness to the Devil”

13 Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. 16 Do not put the Lord your God to the test as you did at Massah.[6]

The Temptation Narrative

And so finally, we come to the story today of Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness.

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2 where for forty days he was tempted (πειράζω peirazō) by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.

3 The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”

4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’”

5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.”

8 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

9 The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. 10 For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; 11 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

12 Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

13 When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time.[7]

Luke 4:1‒13

Now we can make an educated guess as to why the devil tried to pull this little stunt here of tempting God’s son. The devil knew Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and he couldn’t get to him on the spiritual side. The devil targeted Jesus’s human side with the three elements of temptation we talked about in the beginning: the lust of the flesh (turning stones into bread to assuage his hunger, a clear abuse of power to serve himself only); the lust of the eyes (the devil showing Jesus all the kingdoms and offering him to rule it all if he worshiped the devil, Jesus knew who the true ruler was and who deserved his worship); and the boastful pride of life (demonstrating superhuman strength and feats, again an abuse of power to serve himself and draw attention away from his teaching and example). If the devil could get Jesus to bite on just one of these, it would be all over for the rest of us.

How Temptations Lose Their Power

Prayer

One of the main reasons we have this story is to demonstrate what Hebrews 4:15 says: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”[8] And why did he care enough to do that? The very next verse gives us the answer, and one of the biblical steps we can take to cause temptations to lose their power. “Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”[9]

For any test, trial, or temptation we face, we can always turn to God in prayer. Joseph, even though he was imprisoned after fleeing Potiphar’s wife, stayed connected with God. He would eventually rise to power in Egypt because he maintained his integrity and continued to do the will of God. And we’re not alone in these times either. Hebrews 12 says we’re surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Not only can we seek mercy and grace from Christ at the throne of God, but we can also seek it from the body of Christ here in our own communities. Some churches have a Celebrate Recovery program that helps people deal with addictions. Other churches sponsor Grief Care and Divorce Care groups to help people in those situations.

Living in the Will of God

This brings us to another strategy for cutting off the impact of temptation in our lives. Right after John gives his description of temptation I mentioned earlier, he says this: “The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.”[10] David, when he had a chance to kill King Saul in a cave, refused to lay a hand on God’s anointed. It must have been a huge temptation for him to have killed Saul then and there and complete his divinely appointed takeover of the kingdom, but David waited on God’s timing. Another episode where David succeeded was when he was bringing the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem. When he realized he wasn’t transporting it according to God’s instructions, and Uzzah died when touched the Ark to steady it on the cart, David left it at the home of Obed-Edom to keep it safe there until he could move it properly. He didn’t try to make excuses for doing it the wrong way, he just stopped doing it the wrong way.[11]

(Memorizing and) Quoting God’s Word

In addition to prayer and doing God’s will, Jesus shows us yet another way to address temptation and weaken its power in our lives: citing the word of God. The fact that Jesus cites two of his three verses from Deuteronomy 6 gives us some insight as to what Jesus had been thinking about and meditating on while he was in the wilderness. He was obviously thinking about how Moses had led a stiff-necked people through the wilderness for 40 years when he only had to survive it 40 days. He remembered Moses’s success at Massah as we read above from Exodus 17. We can always look to the Scriptures for help facing temptation. It’s good to memorize Scripture as well, so you can have it at the ready, especially when temptation may come at you out of nowhere. Study God’s word. Learn from the mistakes and successes of the heroes of faith. Make a plan.

A Personal Testimony

When I was a young Christian in high school, I was all too aware of what my hormones were doing to me. When I read the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, I embraced that as my power and plan to avoid that kind of temptation. Without going into any detail, twice I found myself in very similar situations to Joseph where I was outright given an opportunity I was not seeking to make the wrong decision with people I knew would be bad influences on me, and I followed Joseph’s plan as a young man. Run away! I am certain that those two events are watershed moments in my faith journey. I’d hate to think where I’d be today had I not made the right decisions in those early days of my faith.

The Promise of God

This brings me to my final Scripture, 1 Corinthians 10:13. I’m sure many of you are familiar with it: “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”[12] Trust in God, his word, and the power of the Holy Spirit working in your lives to watch over you. The devil tried to convince Jesus he could jump off the top of the temple without being harmed by quoting Psalm 91:12. But that verse was never intended for us to do things to provoke God’s protection. That promise is there for us when we find ourselves in a place we were powerless to avoid. God will make a way to cause temptations to lose their power, and that’s one way he shows his great love for us.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My opinions are my own.

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

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

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

[4] Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1996. In Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11] 2 Samuel 6

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

July 2, 2021

μαλακός (malakos) “soft”; “weak”; “effeminate”: A Look at Classical and Biblical Greek Usage

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,1 Timothy,2 Chronicles,Exodus,Greek,Isaiah,LGBTQ,Luke Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,Proverbs,Repentance — Scott Stocking @ 12:31 am
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[If you like this post, you may also like “Rachel Weeping”: The Objectification of Gender and Children.]

One of the main goals of a word study in an ancient language is to understand how the writer used the word in the original context and, where possible, to discern contextual clues that provide the historical and cultural background of the recorded events, descriptions, and deliberations. We cannot change what the historico-cultural background of the time was, nor should we presume to impose modern concepts and ideas on an ancient text or its author, although further study may reveal a more thorough understanding of the historico-cultural background and cause us to look anew at certain texts.

With this in mind, I set out to understand more fully the implications and ideations surrounding the use of μαλακός (malakos) in the ancient Greek texts, and more specifically how that understanding would have carried over into biblical texts of the day in its few uses in Matthew 11:8 (par. Luke 7:25) and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) does not have a separate entry for μαλακός, so the average student of the Bible whose Greek knowledge is limited to Koine is left wanting if they want more information about the broader historico-cultural use of the word.

My purpose here is not so much to comment on the 21st century state of affairs surrounding the concepts behind the word, although I freely admit that is the reason why I undertook this study in the first place. Rather, in the spirit of TDNT, I want to give a more dispassionate, unbiased look at the use of the word in the historical context so the student of the Bible has a fuller understanding of the word and can therewith draw their own conclusions. As with all of my writings on biblical texts, my goal is that we have a fuller understanding of the Word of God and God’s love for us so we can better and more fully love our neighbor as God loves us.

My methodology for this study is simple: I looked at standard Greek annotated Lexicons such as Liddell & Scott (LS) and the online Perseus resource (the Greek texts and any corresponding English translations of the text where available) in addition to standard biblical reference works (UBS 3rd & 4th editions) that indexed the use of the word to its various contexts, then examined the surrounding context to understand the writer’s tone and intention surrounding the use of the word. Where the word was used in contrast, comparison, or in parallel (synthetic or antithetic) with other words or ideas, I examined those as well to better understand the contrast or comparison.

I want to keep this brief so the busy pastor or researcher can get a broad overview of the word’s use in the ancient world. As such, I have chosen representative examples from the entries in LS and other resources to illustrate usage rather than an exhaustive treatment of lexical entries. Most of these resources are publicly available online or in your local college library, so nothing should stand in the way of those who want to dig even deeper. I have organized the article on the basis of the word’s semantic domains rather than by source so the reader can more readily access the section relevant to their interests.

Soft (in the sense of physical touch)

One of the more benign meanings of the word is “soft,” especially when referring to animals or nature. Xenophon (Hiero the Despot 1.5) speaks generally about experiencing the extremes of sensation: cold vs. hot; light vs. heavy; pleasure vs. pain. In the list, he contrasts “soft” with “hard” (σκληρὰ sklēra). In his writing about Horsemanship (1.9a), he makes the same word contrast regarding the condition of a horse’s jaw. Xenophon also uses the word to describe the soft coats of the hunting hounds and the hare, the need for a soft collar for the hunting hound to prevent chafing (Hunting 4.6, 5.10, 6.1), and the softer “double back” on dappled horses (Horsemanship 1.11c).

Xenophon also uses μαλακός to describe the turf on which a horse should be trained (Horsemanship 8.6) and soft turf that makes it easier to track the quarry (Hunting 10.5). Homer (Iliad 9:615–619) uses the word to describe a soft couch on which to lie and in the Odyssey to describe soft fleece (3:38). Herodotus (Histories 9.122.3) also uses the term twice in a zeugma with respect to land somewhat metaphorically in his phrase “Soft lands breed soft men”; the second use of the word in that zeugma is covered in the next domain of meaning below.

The word is used three times in the NT in parallel passages (Mt 11:8 [2x]; Lk 7:25) to describe the “fine clothes” worn by those in palaces. There is one use of the word in this domain in Proverbs 26:22, although used metaphorically: “The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels, they go down to the inner parts of the body.” This seems akin to Xenophon’s usage (although perhaps a bit more abstract) in Hiero the Despot 1.23: “Don’t you look on these condiments, then, as mere fads of a jaded and pampered appetite?” Note that the phrase in the Greek here for “jaded and pampered” is μαλακῆς καὶ ἀσθενούσης, the latter word often translated “sick” or “weak.” This is an important pairing for two reasons. In Xenophon’s Horsemanship 1.3, the superlative of the adjective is contrasted with ἰσχυροτάτῳ (“strongest”) in describing two parts of the horse’s foot (hoof and flesh). Second, the substantive cognate of μαλακός, μαλακία, also means “sickness,” “weakness,” or “pain,” especially in several OT passages (e.g., Ex 23:25; Dt 7:15, 28:61; 2 Chr 16:12; Is 53:3) and three times in Matthew’s gospel (4:23; 9:35; 10:1), all of which have some overlap with the next domain discussed.

Soft (as a character attribute or abstraction), often translated “weak”

The most extreme example of “soft” as a character attribute in my mind is Homer’s description of defeated (and deceased) Hektor in Iliad 22.373 as the victors continue to defile his body with spear jabs: “It is easier to handle [lit. “softer to touch”] Hektor now than when he was flinging fire on to our ships.” In Laws 666b-c, Plato describes the “convivial gatherings [that] invoke Dionysus” where the men over 40 may drink wine without moderation such that “through forgetfulness of care, the temper of our souls may lose its hardness [σκληρὰ sklēra] and become softer and more ductile” (my literal translation). R.G. Bury’s English translation (much less literal and perhaps more poetic than my own) of the same passage describes the wine “as a medicine potent against the crabbedness of old age, that thereby we men may renew our youth.”

Archidamus “had gained credit for weakness” (or as Jowett’s translation has it, “was also thought not to have been energetic enough”) when attacking the Athenians at Oenoe, seemingly procrastinating the attack and perhaps thinking he could spare any damage to the surrounding land that full-on aggression might bring (Thucydides, Histories [The Peloponnesian War] 2.18).

In Herodotus Histories 3.51.2, Periander desires “to show no weakness,” and later in the same book (3.105.2) Herodotus says “the mares never tire, for they remember the young that have left.” (It is interesting to note that the latter reference could be an unintended word or semantic play, as the word for “mares” [θῆλυς] could also be translated “weak” in some contexts.) In 6.11.2, Herodotus recounts that Dionysius addressed his slave army, contrasting the potential for hardship in a battle that could win them their freedom or a “weak and disorderly” response which would lead to continued slavery and perhaps even humiliating death. Recall also the zeugma mentioned above found in 9.122.3: “Soft lands breed soft men.”

One final reference to Herodotus Histories (7.153.4) will tie us into the other NT usage of the word. Herodotus describes a man named Telines, who “is reported by the dwellers in Sicily to have had a soft and effeminate [θηλυδρίης τε καὶ μαλακώτερος] disposition.” This is Godley’s translation. The words are used in parallel with a double conjunction, so it’s not clear at first glance if the Greek word order is switched in the English translation. Regardless, the words are used in parallel, so (as shown in the previous paragraph), it makes little difference in the translation, and Telines’s character is certainly not portrayed in a positive light by Herodotus. [NOTE: See excursus below on Telines’ story in Herodotus.] The use of μαλακός in this domain is primarily a negative trait when ascribed to a human person. It is important to keep this in mind as we look at NT usage of the word (and its parallel) when applied to people in lists of, to put it softly, unflattering persons.

I believe it is, in part at least, this use here in classical Greek that informs Paul’s use of the word in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (NIV), and the context in Paul’s letters bear this out: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” The King James Version (KJV) is a little more literal with the translation of the target phrase: “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” Lowe & Nida, in their Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, distinguish the two words by saying the former is “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse,” and the latter is “the male partner in homosexual intercourse” or in this context, the “active” partner. (Could Herodotus have implied a similar distinction with his dual description of Telines?)

The latter word in the Corinthian text (ἀρσενοκοίτης) is a masculine compound meaning “lying with men” in Liddell & Scott’s abridged lexicon. This word is also used in 1 Timothy 1:10 in a similar list: “for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.”

Conclusion

Short of an Orwellian feat of doublethink, then, it is nearly impossible to give any positive twist on the use of the words for persons practicing homosexuality in the NT. Some try to argue μαλακός means “morally soft” apart from any sexual connotations in the 1 Corinthians passage, but the context in Paul’s letters does not really allow for a generic description like that. I’m not trying to be cruel or bigoted here; I’m just stating the obvious facts as revealed in the historical usage of the words. However, I would remind my Christian siblings that Jesus’s attitude toward those on whom Jewish society generally looked down on (e.g., tax collectors) was not one of hatred, judgment, or spite, but of love and acceptance with a view toward repentance. My encouragement to my readers is to have the same attitude of Jesus toward those practicing homosexuality.

My opinions are my own.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

Excursus on Herodotus Histories 153: the Story of Telines

Added February 17, 2026.

Telines descended from a family from the Isle of Telos (thus the name?) and apparently worshipped the goddesses of the underworld, Demeter and Persphone (aka Kore). Telines had “won” the priesthood of these goddesses for himself and his descendants by rescuing some exiles from Mactorium and returned them to Gela “with no force of men but only the holy instruments of the goddesses worship to aid him.”* Herodotus does not relate how this happened; one might speculate he convinced the Mactorians to worship the goddesses, or perhaps he used the artifacts to indicate some terrible fate awaiting the Mactorians if they continued to hold the exiles. Regardless, the full context of Herodotus’s assessment of Telines not only confirms the meanings of the Greek words attributed to him that I cite (they are the translator’s words, actually) but also may lend some insight into the use of the words in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10.

“Now it makes me marvel that Telines should have achieved such a feat, for I have always supposed that such feats cannot be performed by any man but only by such as have a stout heart and manly strength. Telines, however, is reported by the dwellers in Sicily to have had a soft and effeminate disposition.”*

The contrast between Herodotus’s expectation of Telines’s character and the Sicilian report of such further emphasizes the negative attribution of the two words. But was the Sicilian “report” an accurate reflection of Telines’s character, or had they been perpetuating a false narrative about Telines because they just didn’t like him and wanted to ostracize him? Again, that’s all we have of the history in the four “verses” of the story. The connection with 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 might be obvious to the reader at this point. Herodotus seems to suggest that Telines has “redeemed” himself from the Sicilian reputation (whether he deserved it or not) by performing an act of religious heroism in rescuing the exiles. Paul says the μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται have also been redeemed by converting to Christianity and becoming Christ-followers. In the biblical context, those who were redeemed were also cleansed of their sin and recipients of new life and a new lifestyle.

This is consistent, then, with the transition that Paul makes from the last half of Romans 1, where he describes the sexual debauchery of the Gentiles, but then begins chapter 2 suggesting that even those Gentiles can be redeemed, because God’s kindness could lead them to repentance.

I was touched by the full story once I understood it, and I do have to give some credit to Copilot AI for helping me understand that I didn’t have to look too far to get the complete extant story. I hope this encourages you as well. I read some of the context before and after this story in Herodotus, and I found myself drawn into it, as he had some other moral lessons as well that I may write about at some point.

*Herodotus. 1920. Herodotus, with an English Translation by A. D. Godley. Edited by A. D. Godley. Medford, MA: Harvard University Press.

February 9, 2019

#ToxicMasculinity: Walking Like an Egyptian Pharaoh

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Courage,Evil,Exodus,Faith, Faithfulness,Spiritual Warfare,Women in Leadership — Scott Stocking @ 4:13 pm
Tags: ,

Toxic masculinity is a hot topic these days, but I’ve yet to hear a clear definition of it from the media. As I was reading through the first few chapters of Exodus today, however, I saw several examples of it.

Extreme Toxicity: Pharaoh

The one that sticks out most to me is Pharaoh himself. In Exodus 1:16, Pharaoh is afraid of the Hebrews becoming too numerous, so he orders the midwives to kill all male babies as they are being delivered. The female (note the gender here) midwives, however, have great courage and integrity, and refuse to obey Pharaoh’s command to practice perinatal abortions founded on gender discrimination. Not only that, this is also a prima facie example of the rich and powerful oppressing, abusing, and dare I say even murdering the poor, weak, and defenseless. When Pharaoh realizes the midwives aren’t able to carry out his command, he takes his toxic masculinity to the next level and orders that the baby boys be thrown into the Nile River (Ex 1:22). It is important to know here that the females fear God’s (or their gods’) retribution if they kill the innocent, while Pharaoh has no fear of God.

Pharaoh overplays both his responsibility for leadership and defense of others. He overplays his leadership responsibility by becoming a tyrant with respect to the Hebrews. He overplays his responsibility to defend those he’s responsible for by attempting to destroy those whom he views as a threat, even if that threat may be 20 to 30 years down the road. The ultimate source of his toxic masculinity is his lack of regard for the one true God, the God of the Hebrews, whose power he will soon come to experience.

Pathetic Toxicity: Moses

Moses, initially at least, represents the other extreme from Pharaoh. Moses has first-hand knowledge of God and even has an extended conversation with him. However, in spite of all the assurances God gives to Moses about being with him, giving him words to speak, and showing Pharaoh his mighty power, Moses plays the wimp card. “Who am I, God?” “I speak with faltering lips, God.” “Send someone else to do it, God.” Really, Moses? God gives him a rare gift, a full accounting of what God wants him to do (most of us feel like we’re guessing at that, right?), and he isn’t man enough to accept it, at least, to accept it willingly and enthusiastically. To Moses’s credit, though, once he starts to see God afflict Pharaoh and Egypt with the plagues, his reluctance wanes and his confidence in God’s purpose for his life grows exponentially.

Toxicity 2019: Men With No Chests

Is it a stretch to say that so-called men like @GovernorVA Ralph Northam and @NYGovCuomo Andrew Cuomo are not that far removed from Pharaoh’s toxicity? Like Pharaoh, these two toxically masculine State governors want to kill babies right up to the time of birth and even after birth. They have indeed regressed to a more primitive culture, hiding behind the guise of “Pro-Choice,” which is in itself a form of toxic femininity (judging from the tweets and retweets of New York Council on Women & Girls chairperson @Melissadderosa–she’s an icon of toxic femininity in New York). They prey on the weak for their own political gain, not caring one whit about the emotional impact on women and families or the cultural decline that such positions represent. It is an absolute power play of the rich and powerful.

And where are men who should be taking the lead opposing this toxicity? Let’s start with the men who father these children, then run away and make an intentional choice not to be involved in or support the care of the pregnant mother or the child that is born to the mother who has the courage and integrity to give the child a chance at life. That’s pathetic toxicity to be sure. And what about you, men of God? Are you silent on this issue? Is this a worthy battle to fight? Can we harness our righteous energy and lead with integrity? Can we fight for the things that matter most, like the sanctity and dignity of those created in the image of God? Can we show tender care for the weak, the helpless, those who have lost hope, and those who need a vision of heaven? Let us rise up and make our voices heard!

Conclusion

It is scary to think that the world has come almost full circle from the time of Pharaoh in Egypt over 3,000 years ago. This culture of despising life at its most vulnerable stages is toxic regardless of gender. Those who think they are “progressive” are lying to themselves; they have in fact put on display and are proud of their “regressive” policies. It’s time for the people of God to stand up for truth. God is with us! We need to be faithful to him and trust that he will win the victory for us just as he did when Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt toward the Promised Land. Remember, that God was always the one fighting for them; they never had to lift a finger in violence toward their enemies, and neither should we.

My opinions are my own.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

February 5, 2012

Does the Structure of Exodus 21:1–27 Tell the Patriarchs’ Story?

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Exodus,Hebrew,Moses,Old Testament,Righteousness,Ten Commandments (Decalogue),Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 8:40 am
Tags: , , ,

I really enjoyed my Old Testament exegesis classes in seminary with Dr. Gary Hall, who is retiring from Lincoln Christian Seminary this year. Each week, we had a passage to dissect, and we always followed the same pattern. The systematic method he taught us has stuck with me all these years, which is one reason why I love teaching hermeneutics. It has also opened up new depths of understanding to difficult passages, and has helped me discover the eternal principles behind the earthly stories of those who have gone before me.

Exodus 21 Assigned

One such passage that sold me on the value of discerning structure in the Bible is Exodus 21:1–27. I believe we had actually been assigned Exodus 21:12–27, which is set off in the TNIV with the heading “Personal Injuries.” However, when I looked at the passage in the Hebrew Bible that week, I noticed that vv. 1–27 were a complete paragraph. Dr. Hall had taught us to pay attention to such structural clues, so I took it upon myself to expand the assigned passage and see what I could discover from that. I was amazed at what I found, but I was even more amazed when I took into account the literary and historical context of the passage.

Here is the structure of the passage:

1 Introduction

    2–11 Hebrew Slaves

        12–14 Striking a man/conditionality

             15 Physically attacking Father/Mother

                16 Kidnapping

             17 Verbally attacking Father/Mother

        18–25 Striking a man or a pregnant woman

        [18–19 Striking a man]

    [20–21 Striking a Slave]

        [22–25 Striking a pregnant woman]

    26–27 Hebrew Slaves

Exodus 21 Considered

If you’ve read my posts regularly or if you’ve ever taken a class that talks about the structure of a biblical passage, you will instantly recognize this as a chiasm, a passage that presents ideas in one order and repeats them in reverse order. The key point about a chiasm is that whatever is at the center of the chiasm is the focus. So when I discovered this structure, I thought a couple things were unusual:

  1. Why were the two nearly identical laws about parents not together? and
  2. Why was “kidnapping” inserted between the two commands, especially when kidnapping isn’t mentioned in the Ten Commandments?

I need to answer both those questions together, because there is a connection. I do remember when I was looking at this passage in some English texts that one English version (I thought it was my RSV confirmation Bible, but I can’t locate it now to confirm) actually had the chutzpah to flip verses 16 and 17 around, because the translators thought as I did at first glance that they belonged together. The answer to my second question came when I looked at the Hebrew: the word “kidnap” is translated from the Hebrew phrase וְגֹנֵ֨ב אִ֧ישׁ (wə·ḡō·nēḇ ʾîš, \wuh-goh-nayv eesh\), which literally means “the one stealing a man.” Aha! Stealing: now that is something in the Ten Commandments. Now I’m getting somewhere.

גָּנַב is the same word translated “steal” in the Ten Commandments. “Stealing” a man meant not only removing that man from his covenant community but also taking away the life he had planned for himself. גָּנַב is often used of stealing things and people. It’s presence here, especially in the center of the structure (see above), indicates the seriousness of the crime of kidnapping. It is on a par with striking or cursing your parents, and the abuse and murder of slaves. All crimes listed here could be punishable by death, especially with the presence of the lex talionis at the end of this passage.

So now I was at least part way to an answer. Kidnapping was the ultimate form of mistreatment of another person. That is why it was at the center of the passage.

Exodus 21 in Context

But there was a larger question to answer. I had only dealt with the central elements, but what about the rest of the paragraph? I asked myself, “What do treatment of slaves, mistreatment of parents, and kidnapping have in common?” The answer stuck out like a sore thumb. Joseph. Joseph’s brothers kidnapped him. Strike one. They sold him into slavery. Strike two. They lied to their father Israel, which would be equivalent to a curse, about what happened to Joseph. Strike three. So the first story out of the gate after hearing the Ten Commandments is like a slap in the face to all of Israel. “You did it to Joseph, which is how you wound up in slavery in Egypt in the first place. Go and sin no more. Even though God intended it for good (Genesis 50:20), don’t let that be an excuse to try it again.”

Conclusion

I hope you can see how important structure and context is in determining the meaning and significance of a passage. Moses brilliantly structured Exodus 21 (or God did so for Moses) not only to communicate his statutes, but to place those in the historical context of God’s people.

Peace!

Pastor Scott Stocking, M. Div.

My views are my own.

January 29, 2012

“I Am” Statement of Yahweh (Exodus 3–6, esp. Exodus 3:14)

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Exodus,Hebrew,John Gospel of,Old Testament — Scott Stocking @ 8:33 am

As I was reading through the early chapters of Exodus last week, I was not only reminded of the “I Am” statements of Jesus in John’s gospel, but I gained some new insight into the overall application of those statements. I want to share that with you in this post.

Face to Face at the Bush

Exodus 3 is the story of Moses’s first encounter with God at the burning bush in Midian. This is also the chapter where we have the story of God revealing his personal name to Moses: יְהוָ֖ה “Yahweh” (English texts set in small caps: LORD). But the text leading up to that revelation is a story that deserves the *facepalm* of all *facepalms*! God has been preparing Moses to confront Pharaoh and deliver the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. You’d have to admit, that’s a pretty big task in those days, considering most kings and their subjects wouldn’t give a second thought about having you beheaded or drawn and quartered for merely approaching the king without invitation let alone confronting the king.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Moses approaches the burning bush when Yahweh calls out to him. He removes his sandals, because he’s on holy ground. Yahweh proceeds to identify himself and his purposes for calling Moses, while Moses does his own reverent version of a facepalm (Exodus 3:6b). Listen to what Yahweh says to Moses in Exodus 3:6–10 (NIV) and see if you detect a pattern:

I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt.

I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and

I am concerned about their suffering. So

I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land…

And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and

I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them.

So now, go.

I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.

Yahweh makes seven(!) “I” statements here about who he is and what he will do, and he affirms that he has the power to do all this through Moses. I suppose God could have done it without all the pomp and circumstance of the plagues, but then how would anyone ever know what God thinks of kings who exalt themselves to positions of deity? But here’s the facepalm moment: after God affirms that he’s going to do all this through Moses, what does Moses say?

“Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” (Exodus 3:11).

*FACEPALM!*

Evidently Moses didn’t have Verizon, because he obviously didn’t hear God the first time. The creator of the universe is speaking to Moses, giving him more information about himself than he’s ever given to any other patriarch (except perhaps Abraham), and Moses is worried about himself! Duh, Moses, it’s not about you; God just confirmed that!

Saving Face

Of course, it’s easy for us 3500 years later to look back on this story and be a little critical of Moses. The story does show his human side, and I wonder how many of us would have be willing to saddle up and head out without questioning God further on the matter. God isn’t afraid of having a conversation with us, and he’s big enough to deal with our questions and fears. He’s ever so patient with us as we muddle through life trying to figure out his will and purpose for us. But he also offers reassurance to us in the form of a promise that is repeated time and again in both the Old and New Testaments. He offered that promise to the patriarchs before Moses, and he offers it again to Moses in 3:12: “I will be with you.”

This is where the Hebrew gets very interesting, and most English translations relegate the significant issue to a footnote. The Hebrew word for “I will be” is the standard “to be” verb: הָיָה (hāyāh), but since Hebrew, like Greek, alters the spelling of its verbs based on the person and number of the verb, the form that is used in 3:12 is אֶהְיֶה (first person singular ʾehyeh; notice the letters are the same, except for the aleph א added to the front of the word). This is the exact same form that most English translations render “I AM WHO I AM” in 3:14 when God reveals his name! To their credit, most English translations have a footnote on v. 14 saying that this could be “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE,” but in my opinion, that should be the translation in the main text. The form יְהוָ֖ה “Yahweh” that is used regularly throughout the Hebrew Old Testament is probably related to the third person singular form of the verb.

Hebrew verbs don’t have tense in the same way that English verbs do. Hebrew verbs either represent completed action (perfects) or incomplete action (imperfects). The verb form Yahweh uses for his name is imperfect (ironic, I know, but that’s the grammar). What I hear Yahweh saying to Moses here is that he will do whatever it takes, he will be whatever he needs to be, to deliver the Israelites from Egypt. That is a father showing ultimate love for his children: even if it comes to destroying every last trace of the Egyptian people and culture, God will deliver his people.

Facing Up

Once was not enough, though. God has to go back through the I statements again in Exodus 6, but the Israelites were too oppressed to hear it or believe it. So God’s mighty plagues were not just to break Pharaoh’s stubborn heart, but also to show Israel that he meant business about delivering them from the Egyptians. This is emphasized in the latter plagues that have no effect on the land of Goshen where the Israelites lived.

So what does all this have to do with the “I am” statements of Jesus? What occurred to me is that Jesus was doing for his audience what Yahweh did for Moses and the Israelites. His “I am” statements affirm that he is the savior and that he can and will do whatever it takes to deliver people from sin and Satan, even to the point of dying on a cross. Jesus stood up to the religious oppressors of his day and proclaimed the good news of God’s deliverance and love for his creation.

Many of us Christ followers I’m sure have done our own facepalms when friends or family just don’t comprehend the good news. Well, you’re in good company. Be patient and keep at it, because you might have to witness a lot of pain and suffering before the deliverance finally happens. And Christ offers the same assurance to us as Yahweh did to Moses: “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20 TNIV).

Peace,

Scott Stocking

Please check out my friend Eric Weiss’s post on this topic: http://theoblogoumena.blogspot.com/2011/05/exodus-314-and.html.

« Previous Page

Website Powered by WordPress.com.