Sunday Morning Greek Blog

June 11, 2011

“I Am the Light of the World” (John 8:12)

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Christology,Ephesians,John Gospel of,New Testament,Old Testament,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 1:16 pm

 I used the last part of this for our Christmas Eve 2024 service at Mount View Presbyterian Church. The audio recording is below.

What does a primitive tent have to do with Jesus being the light of the world? Read on and find out!

Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7)

Before diving into Jesus’ statement, “I am the light of the world,” some background information is crucial to understand both the context of the statement and the connection to other “I am” statements and some of Jesus’ seven signs that John records. In this case, John 7 provides the setting for Jesus’ statement. Seven times in chapter 7, John mentions the “Feast” (or “Festival” in some translations), referring to the Feast of Tabernacles or Feast of Booths (7:2; ἡ ἑορτὴ… ἡ σκηνοπηγία hē heortē… hē skēnopēgia /hay heh-or-TAY hay skay-nȯ-pay-GEE-ah/ [g as in girl]). This feast originated in the days of Israel’s wilderness wanderings before entering the Promised Land (Leviticus 23:33–44; חַ֥ג הַסֻּכּ֖וֹת hăg hăssǔkkōth /hag hass-sook-KOATH/, ‘Feast of Tabernacles’ or ‘Succoth’), when the Israelites had to live in temporary shelters to remember their desert sojourn. Deuteronomy 16:16 says that the Feast of Tabernacles is one of the three feasts at which all Israelite males must present themselves every year.

There is no definitive mention of the festival after Deuteronomy until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, when the Israelites returned from exile. In Ezra 3, Joshua and Zerubbabel rebuild the altar, begin offering sacrifices, and command that the Feast of Tabernacles be restored once again, all eight days of it. In Nehemiah, the celebration of the Feast is reinforced when, as Ezra was reading the law (Nehemiah 8), the people hear the instructions for the Feast and waste no time building booths wherever they could find a spot: on their roofs, in the Temple courts, and especially by the Water Gate. The law of God was read during the eight days of the Feast in Nehemiah, and the text said the people celebrated it as none had since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, when the Israelites had entered the Promised Land some 800 years earlier.

The fact that the people dwelt near the Water Gate is significant, and provides continuity with and a connection to the first “I am” statement and its connection to Jesus’ “living water” statement in John 4. According to Craig Keener, in the section on John 7 in his IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, one of the rituals of the Feast, at least as it had developed in Jesus’ day, was for the priest to take water from the Pool of Siloam and pour it out at the base of the altar each day of the feast. Two of the Scripture passages that had become important for the Feast were Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 47. Consider Ezekiel 47 first, where a river of life flows out of Ezekiel’s temple (one that has never been constructed in history as far as we know, if the dimensions are to be taken literally) toward the Dead Sea, thus transforming it into a fresh-water lake teeming with life. Add to that Zechariah 14:8 (TNIV), which says: “On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and in winter,” and one understands the significance of pouring out the water at the base of the altar. Finally, Zechariah 14:16–19 speaks of the Israelites once again celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles (three mentions).

It is important here to note the connection with John 4: Jesus gets into a discussion with a Samaritan woman about the appropriate place to worship. Jesus says he is the living water. In other words, Jesus is the river flowing from Ezekiel’s yet-to-be-built temple! Jesus makes the claim that it is only through him that God can be worshiped (perhaps looking forward to another “I am” statement in John 14:6), and the geographical location doesn’t matter. In the Bread of Life post, I made the connection between John 4 and 6, so we have the beginning of some insight into John’s organizational scheme (I told you I was working these things out as I go along!).

Another interesting feature of John 7 is that Jesus initially tells his disciples to go to the feast without him, and they do. But Jesus is not far behind. He already knows the Jewish leaders are out to kill him, so he’s trying to be low key, but there is nothing low key about Jesus. He always attracts a crowd. John even makes a point of saying that the crowd was expecting him to be there. Jesus shows up in the middle of Feast week and begins teaching in the Temple. John 7:37–38 is a key passage here, and I use Keener’s suggested translation: “On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, ‘If anyone thirsts, let this one come to me; and let whoever believes in me drink.‘” (Because the ancient manuscripts did not have any original punctuation, this is an acceptable means of exegeting a passage.) Jesus once again calls attention to himself, this time to a huge crowd, as the living water. Those who drink of him will never thirst again.

Jesus, the Light of the World (John 8:12)

But there is one more feature of the “last and greatest day of the Feast” that relates directly to Jesus’ “I am the light of the world” (Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου egō eimi to phōs tou kosmou) declaration in 8:12. On that last night, the entire city was lit up with torches. Streets, houses, temples, market places, and even the walls of the city were not exempt from being lit up brightly. What is problematic for biblical scholars at this point is the debated insertion of the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11. (What is interesting about this insertion is that Zechariah 14:4 says that God will stand on the Mount of Olives and fight for Jerusalem, while the spurious passage in John 7:53 says that Jesus spent the night on the Mount of Olives before returning to the Temple the next morning. Something else to make me go “hmm”.) If 7:53–8:11 is not original to John (and what I am about to say here makes me think it is not), then Jesus’ statement “I am the light of the world” is a direct reference to this lighting ritual of the Feast of Tabernacles.

The moniker “light of the world” was not unique to Jesus. Keener says that it was applied to the law, the patriarchs, Israel, Jerusalem, famous rabbis, and, of course, the Messiah. But for Jesus himself to declare “I am the light of the world” was a bold statement indeed (see the Pharisees’ reaction in 8:13 and Jesus’ response in the following verses). But John has been setting his readers up for this from the very first chapter. Six times in John 1:1–14 and five times in 3:19–21, John describes Jesus as the light (φως phōs) that has come into the world and shattered the darkness. I wrote previously about the connection to Isaiah 9 in my Honoring Galilee post, that Jesus was the light to those walking in darkness. What is even more fascinating is that in chapter 12, the last chapter before Jesus’ passion begins in earnest with the Last Supper, the word for light appears another six times, forming an obvious inclusio with chapter 1 and leaving the reader no doubt that Jesus is in fact the light of the world sent from the Father himself.

But Jesus is not satisfied to draw on the imagery of the Feast for his own testimony. The rest of chapter 8 records a debate about who Jesus is and about whose children the unbelievers are. So if the Feast imagery and the light inclusio still isn’t enough, Jesus puts the pièce de résistance on the whole event in chapter 9: he heals a man born blind. [Added 6/19/2011: Note especially Jesus’ words in John 9:5: “While I am in the world, I am the light of the world,” just before the man receives his sight.] He proves for all eternity (at least for those smart enough and willing enough to believe it) that he is the light of the world because he gives the ability to see light to someone who’s never had a visual sensation of it. And if you thought the Pharisees were fussing in chapter 8, you should see their attempts to twist this spectacular sign into a work of the devil. But Jesus puts them in their place at the end of chapter 9: “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” Jesus has the power to give and take light, both natural light and spiritual light. He truly is the light of the world.

The Practical Side of Being Children of Light

Paul and John both spent a considerable amount of time in Ephesus, and as I have alluded to before, Ephesians seems to have some traces of a Johannine influence. In no place is that more apparent than Ephesians 5:8ff. Not only does Paul tell us to “live as children of light,” but he also exhorts us to expose “the fruitless deeds of darkness.” As such, we have an active role in living as Christ-followers, and we also have an obligation to be proactive in turning the tide of evil. There is nothing passive about walking in the light of Christ! We could not navigate through the evils of this world without the light of Christ, and that is why he gives himself to us as light.

One final note: I think the light God created in Genesis 1:3–5 is something more than a concept. We know that the light of those verses can’t come from anything physical, because the sun, moon, and stars had not yet been created. Could it be that when Jesus says, “I am the light of the world,” he is also referring to himself as that first and primary “unmade creation” of God? Obviously, I don’t think Jesus was created or made in the same way everything else was created or made, and the Genesis text doesn’t say God “made” the light. He simply said, “Let there be light”; it is a recognition of what already exists (note that the existence of water is assumed; it is not created or made either, or at least, we are not told directly it is created or made). Light and water, two of the “unmades” of creation and two of the foundations of life, and Jesus calls himself the light of the world and living water. Boy, I’m really hmming now!

Peace!

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

June 5, 2011

The “I Am” Statements of Jesus

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Christology,Greek,John Gospel of,New Testament,Old Testament,Septuagint,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 8:28 am

These last two weeks have been challenging to say the least. I have moved into an apartment, and my body is stiff and sore from carrying my stuff up two flights of stairs several times a day. I went to Illinois last weekend to see my kids—we had a great time in Chicago attending a damp but entertaining Kane County Cougars baseball game (single A team for the Royals), then waited two hours in a thunderstorm to get into Shedd Aquarium the next morning. We were wetter than the aquatic creatures by the time we got in there. I am also in the process of switching second jobs, which has taken considerably more time than I anticipated. And as I have come to the heart of John’s gospel with the seven “I am” statements of Jesus, Satan has ramped up his attacks on me, and some days, I have been too tired to think spiritually enough to resist. But I praise God that he has strengthened me in the past few days, and I’m feeling a renewed vigor and resolve to press forward.

Overview of “I Am” Statements in John

Some of you may already know that Jesus makes seven key “I am” statements about himself in John’s gospel. They usually take the form “Ἐγω εἰμι [predicate nominative case definite article and noun] [(genitive case definite article and noun translated “of X”) or (predicate nominative case definite article with adjective) or, in the absence of the latter two, (one or more additional nominative case noun descriptions]. (Nominative case is the “subject” case in Greek; predicate nominative means it comes after the “to be” verb; genitive case implies possession or source.) In some cases, the “I am” statements are repeated in various forms. Jesus makes other “I am” or “I am not” statements in John’s gospel that I will address below, but to begin, here are the seven main “I am” statements of Jesus, giving the first occurrence of each if there are multiple similar statements (taken from Nestle-Aland Greek NT, 27th edition, with McReynold’s Interlinear):

John 6:35

Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς

egō eimi ho artos tēs zōēs

I am the bread of the life

(see also 6:41, 48, 51)

John 8:12

Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου

egō eimi to phōs tou kosmou

I am the light of the world

John 10:7

Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα τῶν προβάτων

egō eimi hē thyra tōn probatōn

I am the door of the sheep

(see also 10:9)

John 10:11

Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός

Egō eimi ho poimēn ho kalos

I am the shepherd the good (= “the good shepherd”)

(see also John 10:14)

John 11:25

Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή

egō eimi hē anastasis kai hē zōē

I am the standing up (= “resurrection”) and the life

John 14:6

ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή

egō eimi hē hodos kai hē alētheia kai hē zōē

I am the way and the truth and the life

John 15:1

Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ

Egō eimi hē ampelos hē alēthinē

I am the vine the true (= “the true vine”)

(see also John 15:5).

Background

I need to mention one bit of grammatical background here: Greek verbs are “parsed” (that is, their spelling changes) depending on the “person” and “number” of the subject of the verb. As such, if the subject of the verb is a simple pronoun (first person: I, we; second person: you, y’all; third person: he, she, it, they), then Greek does not typically require an actual pronoun to accompany the verb. The subject is implied by the way the verb is spelled. So if I wanted to say “I am a sinner” in Greek, I would render it Εἰμί ἁμάρτωλος. When a pronoun is used as the subject of the verb, then it is considered emphatic. So if I said Ἐγώ εἰμί ἁμάρτωλος, I would be saying in effect, “I myself am a sinner.” So the fact that Jesus uses ἐγώ here means that he is calling attention to himself in a special way. He is not just saying, “I am hungry” or “I am thirsty.” He is making people sit up and take notice about who he really is.

The most obvious significance of Jesus making these “I am” statements is the direct connection to Exodus 3:14, where God reveals his name to Moses. In Hebrew, that name is usually rendered יְהוָ֞ה (yəh WAH, or commonly rendered in English as Yahweh /YAH way/, with the vowels corresponding to the Hebrew word for Lord, adonai, which Jews often spoke in its place because speaking the actual name Yahweh is considered taboo to them; NOTE: “Jehovah” is not a proper Hebrew or English rendering of this word). The Septuagint (LXX = Koine Greek translation of the OT) uses Ἐγω εἰμι to translate the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14, but whenever the Tetragrammaton (fancy name for the four Hebrew letters of Yahweh) appears in Hebrew, the LXX usually translates it κύριος (kyrios /KOO ree oss/ ‘lord’). In English texts, the name is printed with an initial full capital and small caps: LORD. All this background is necessary to understand that when Jesus says “I am” in these contexts, he is making theological truth claims about his very nature.

The Other “I Am” Statements

John’s gospel has ten “I am” statements apart from the ones mentioned above that usually serve as identifiers (“I am he”) in response to a question (e.g., 4:26) or that say something about his purpose or person (e.g., 13:19). The most significant of these, and one that could arguably be added to the seven statements above, is John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I am.”

John also records six “Where I am” statements of Jesus. They either say something to the effect that “Where I am, you cannot come” (7:34), but later change to a promise (14:3; “That where I am you may also be”) and a prayer (17:24). Four additional times, Jesus indicates where he is and is not from: “I am from above, I am not of this world” (8:23). He repeats the last half of that in 17:14, 16.

Conclusion and a Promise

As is usually the case, time has passed by quickly here and I am not able to start unpacking the “I am” statements this morning. However, in the days and weeks to come, I will dedicate subsequent posts to unpacking each of these “I am” statements as time allows. These statements are so crucial to John’s Christology, and they always come at the appropriate point in the text to make the greatest impact on the conscientious reader. Have a great Sunday morning in worship, and have a great week to come. Rest in the promise of Jesus from Matthew 28:20: “I am with you always.”

Peace!

Scott Stocking

This post was updated 11/8/2011 to add hyperlinks to the “I Am” Scriptures for the respective blog posts on those Scriptures.

April 18, 2011

Unicorns in the Bible? (Dedicated to my son, Alec)

Filed under: Biblical Animals,Biblical Studies,Greek,Septuagint — Scott Stocking @ 6:40 am

My son and youngest daughter went to the Creation Museum in Kentucky a couple weeks ago. We had gone a few years ago, and although the Noah’s Ark displays were impressive, I was very disappointed in the overall presentation. I was hoping for something a little more scientific and a little less “preachy.” That aside, I still believe in creationism; the diversity of God’s creation always floors me whenever I learn something new and unique about it. But I digress. On the eve of his trip, my son texted me a question about whether unicorns were mentioned in the Bible. Since I had missed a blog post a couple weeks ago while I was visiting my kids, I thought I’d make it up here by honoring my son’s biblical curiosity with a blog post about what I discovered.

I had just read through the entire Bible last year (Today’s New International Version, TNIV), but didn’t remember any mention of unicorns. However, when I commissioned Logos to the task, I found that the King James Version has the word “unicorn” nine times. The English word is found in the following passages, all from the Old Testament (no New Testament or Revelation references) of the Authorized (King James) Version published in 1769 (the 1873 and 1900 versions also have the word):

Num 23:22    God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Num 24:8    God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Deut 33:17    His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Job 39:9    Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10    Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Ps 22:21    Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Ps 29:6    He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Ps 92:10    But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isa 34:7    And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

The Hebrew word in these passages is רְאֵם (reʾēm, /r’ AIM/ Bos primigenius bojanus). Many modern translations render this “wild ox,” which was probably the “aurochs,” now presumed extinct. (I say “presumed,” because how many times of late have scientists found creatures or plants thought to have been extinct for thousands  of years?) [Note added 07/18/21: I just noticed that the NIV Study Bible by Zondervan has a study note on Numbers 23:22 suggesting this may be the “oryx,” an antelope with large, straight, skinny horns; I’m wondering if the author got the homophones confused, because the skinny horns don’t strike me as strong as that of an ox, nor does an antelope itself strike me as strong as an ox.]

The reason the word “unicorn” entered the text is most likely because of the unfortunate Septuagint (LXX) Greek translation of the word, μονόκερως (monokerōs /mo NO kehr rohss/ ‘one-horned’). One need only look up pictures of livestock to find pictures of animals to whom the ancients would have ascribed a name meaning “having one horn.” The most obvious living animal in my mind is the rhinoceros (in modern Greek, ρινόκερος rinokeros—note the similarity; see also Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon and Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew for this possibility as well). Many other animals appear to have “one” horn, because the points from which the horns originate appear to be a horny (kerototic) mass in the middle of the head, or they come from a pair of originating points as close together as our human nostrils, much like the modern-day musk ox. Whatever this animal was, it is thought to be a clean animal, so that would rule out any horselike creatures such as unicorns and Pegasus.

The Bible authors mention numerous creatures about which we have no modern knowledge. For example, if you look at the list of clean and unclean animals in Leviticus 11, you will most likely see a footnote stating that the identification of many of the animals (especially birds) is uncertain. Job certainly is speaking of dinosaurs when he speaks of the behemoth: “Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron” (Job 40:17–18; also see Isaiah 48:4 for a similar description of stubborn Israel). If you’ve ever seen the stringy tail of an elephant or the virtually nonexistent tail of the hippopotamus (see NIV footnote on Job 40:15), I don’t see how you could say it “sways like a cedar.”

So as much of a fan of fantasy literature (and the Irish Rovers) as I am, I would have to conclude that, although there may have been a truly one-horned animal similar to the unicorn, the modern conception of it most likely never existed (not even before the flood; sorry Irish Rovers). It is truly a mythological creature, but one that has sparked the creative imagination of many.

Peace

March 30, 2011

Opening the Womb

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Birth Stories,Greek,Luke Gospel of,New Testament,Old Testament — Scott Stocking @ 6:45 am

I spent six days last week working through Luke 1–2. One might think that the third Gospel might not offer anything new after working through the first two Gospels, but this is Luke: evangelist, scholar, and physician. Luke is certainly more detailed than any of the other Gospel writers, so he offers a lot more detail to digest.

One of the interesting things I discovered is that Luke’s description of the “womb” is quite different for Elizabeth and Mary. Four times in Luke 1, Luke uses the Greek word κοιλία
(koilia) to describe the womb: three times it refers to John in Elizabeth’s womb, and once to Jesus in Mary’s womb. This is the more common word for “womb” (10 of its 20 uses in the NT refer to the womb or birth) in both the OT and NT, but it is also a more generic word for the “belly.” About one third of its uses in the Septuagint (LXX, Greek OT) are tied to the Hebrew word בֶּטֶן (bě∙ṭěn, ‘womb,’ ‘belly’). But when it comes to the birth of Jesus, Luke bests Matthew in his use of the OT and draws on the Passover story for a uniquely different word.

Luke, in 2:23, cites Exodus 13:2: Πᾶν ἄρσεν διανοῖγον μήτραν ἅγιον τῷ κυρίῳ κληθήσεται, (pan arsen dianoigon mētran hagion tō kuriō klēthēsetai, ‘every male who opens the birth canal will be called holy to the Lord’). It was the phrase διανοῖγον μήτραν that caught my attention. There is nothing special about the word διανοῖγω that would suggest “firstborn” necessarily, but of the few times the word is used in the NT, the “opening” is always dramatic. The prefix on the word (δια-) implies an opening “through” something. The word μήτρα
is more specific than the womb. The fact that it is apparently related to the Greek word for “mother” makes the word unique to women, first of all. Second, the fact that Luke, the physician, uses a more anatomically correct term from the Greek version of the OT, indicates that there is indeed something special about this birth. One third of the occurrences of μήτρα in the OT are in a phrase about the firstborn “opening the womb.” The term is so tied to the female sexual organ that Louw and Nida, in their Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, warn that a literal translation of the phrase in another language might imply the first act of coitus with a woman rather than the first male to be born from her womb.

The only other use of the word in the NT is found in Romans 4:19 with respect to Sarah’s “dead” womb. The word is also used in that context in several places in the OT as well, referring either to infertility or a stillborn child. One of the most notable occurrences is in 1 Samuel 1:5–6, the story of the birth of Samuel. Hannah has been unable to have children, and in the course of time, after much fervent prayer and the blessing of Eli, Hannah conceives and has a son, whom she dedicates to the service of the Lord. That son was Samuel, the last judge before Israel demanded a king. He was the first son of Hannah, but not of Hannah’s husband, Elkanah, who had children by another wife, Penninah.

Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel 2 has many parallels to Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) and Zechariah’s song (Luke 1:68–79), and the connection here with Luke’s birth stories brings attention to the whole history of the “firstborn” in Israel. If you’ve ever read through the OT, you may have noticed that the firstborn, even though Exodus says he is holy to God, never seems to get the full blessing that would have been standard in that culture, at least not for the major players in the biblical story. Cain, the first firstborn, started things off on the wrong foot by killing his (obviously) younger brother Abel, and the story of the firstborn (or at least, the first son of a father) became almost a curse for the history of God’s people in the OT. Abraham took matters into his own hands with Hagar and his firstborn, Ishmael, proved to be a thorn in the flesh for the offspring of Sarah’s firstborn, Isaac. Later, Isaac and Rebekah had twins, Esau and Jacob, but Jacob (later Israel) deceived his father to steal the birthright of the firstborn from Esau. Jacob’s first son was not the star of the show, but Rachel’s first son by Jacob, Joseph, became the savior of Israel’s family. Even Judah, from whom Jesus is descended, was not the firstborn, but the fourth son of Leah, Jacob’s least-favorite wife. King David, again in the lineage of Jesus, was the youngest of all his brothers.

How does all this tie into the birth stories of Jesus and John the Baptizer? With the births of John and Jesus, the history of the firstborn in Israel is redeemed. In those stories, we have not one, but two sons miraculously conceived. Elizabeth’s story parallels Sarah’s: barren into her old age. Mary’s story is completely new: a son conceived by the Holy Spirit; no human intervention other than Mary carrying the child to birth. John is empowered by the Holy Spirit to testify about his cousin Jesus, and of course, Jesus is God’s (not to mention Mary’s) firstborn, spotless lamb, Savior of the world. Finally, stories about firstborn sons who got it right! As a firstborn myself, I’m a little sensitive to that, but by God’s grace, I will go forward in faith, and I pray that I will lead my firstborn son (and my younger daughters) along the path of godliness and faithfulness.

Peace!

March 20, 2011

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

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Christology,Greek,Mark Gospel of,Old Testament,Psalms — Scott Stocking @ 8:40 am

In Mark 15:34 (parallel Matthew 27:46), Jesus cries out from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (the Aramaic version is given in the text: ʾEloi, ʾEloi, lama sabachthani; Hebrew:אֵלִ֣י אֵ֭לִי לָמָ֣ה עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי
ʾEliy, ʾEliy, lamah ʿăzăbtāniy; Greek: Ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με; ho theos mou ho theos mou, eis ti enkatelipes me?). Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1 [22:2 MT, LXX] here, but is he quoting it in utter despair? Having just finished reading The Screwtape Letters, I learned again that despair is probably the worst sin with which Satan can tempt us. But we know Jesus did not give into sin, not even the sin of despair. So why does he quote it on the cross, in the hour of his greatest pain?

If you read all of Psalm 22, you will find many parallels to the negative and agonizing aspects of the crucifixion event. In 22:7, we see the mocking (Mark 15:20, 31), insulting (ὀνειδίζω oneidizō; Hebrew is literally: ‘open wide their lips’; Mark 15:29, 32), and shaking of heads (Mark 15:29). In Psalm 22:15, David prophesies, “My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth.” Jesus sums that up in John 19:28 (the only one to record this) when he says “I am thirsty.” Psalm 22:16 is explicit: “They pierce my hands and my feet” (although there is a variant reading here; see TNIV footnote). The casting of lots to divide Christ’s clothes (Psalm 22:18) is referenced by all four Gospel writers (Mark 15:24, Matthew 27:35, Luke 23:34, John 19:23–24). Psalm 22:24 hints at Isaiah’s suffering servant, especially Isaiah 53. The final verse of Psalm 22 (v. 31) has the declaration, “He has done it!” That sounds very much like John 19:30: “It is finished.”

My point in citing all these is that Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1 not because he is in despair, but because he wants to call attention to the entire Psalm. (Matthew does something similar when he quotes Isaiah 7:14 about the virgin being with child; he is bringing to his readers’ attention the whole prophetic, messianic narrative of Isaiah 7–12.) Psalm 22 is also filled with great hope. It has many positive statements in it that would have served to encourage and strengthen Christ in his final moments on the cross: vv. 4–5 speak of deliverance and salvation; vv. 9–10 speak of God’s closeness throughout life; vv. 11 and 19–20 are pleas for God to stay near and bring rescue in times of trouble; vv. 22–31 look forward to the proclamation of the Gospel message.

Christ gave it all for our salvation. Even when we think we have it bad, look at the example of Christ on the cross, who, in the face of death, did not consider himself forsaken, but held on to the promise of help and deliverance of Psalm 22.

Other Tidbits from the Crucifixion Stories

As I was checking parallel Gospel accounts, I happened to notice in John 19:23 that Jesus’ undergarment was woven in one piece, “from top to bottom,” so the soldiers did not want to tear (σχίζω schizō) this as they did the rest of his clothes. Similar language is used when the curtain of the temple is torn (σχίζω
again) “from top to bottom,” although Mark and John use different words for “bottom.”

Mark records in 15:47 that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses both saw the tomb where Jesus had been placed by Joseph of Arimathea. This is an important apologetic element, as “every testimony is established by two or three witnesses.” Someone had to have seen where Jesus was placed to know the tomb had indeed been miraculously vacated.

One more thing (not “finally,” because there is so much more I could say): I find it interesting that when the soldiers mock Jesus before taking him to Golgotha, they beat him on the head (Mark 15:19) with a reed (καλάμος kalamos). In 15:36, the same word is used of the stick on which they place the sponge to offer Jesus one last drink. Is it possible that was the same stick or reed? Things that make you go “hmm.”

Peace!

February 21, 2011

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

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

February 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other notes on Mark 1.

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

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

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

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

« Previous Page

Website Powered by WordPress.com.