December 21, 2022

“Rachel Weeping”: The Objectification of Gender and Children

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Exodus,Faith, Faithfulness,Genesis,Jeremiah,Prophet,Repentance,Romans,Soteriology,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 7:24 am
Tags: Abortion, Exodus 1:9, Exposure, Face-paint racism, Gender transition in kids, Genital mutilation, Jeremiah 31:15, Objectification of children, Objectification of women, Oedipus Tyrannus, Romans 1:26-27, ToxicMasculinity

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

#ToxicMasculinity: Walking Like an Egyptian Pharaoh

#ToxicMasculinity: Walking Like an Egyptian Pharaoh–2021 Update

Abstract: In this article, I’ll compare the ancient practice of “exposure” to the modern practice of abortion. Then I’ll take a look at two different forms of gender confusion and argue that they are gross misrepresentations and objectifications of children and women.

(NOTE: If you like this post, you may also like μαλακός (malakos) “soft,” “weak,” “effeminate”: A Look at Classical and Biblical Greek Usage.)

The Bible tells us of three major “deliverance” events that had broad-ranging impact on world history. The first was the flood in Noah’s time. God was sorry and “deeply troubled” that he had made man, so he decided to start over again with the one righteous family he could find. God showed no discrimination in that judgment: everyone, young and old, except for the eight people in Noah’s family, died in that flood.

The second was the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt in the time of Moses. I will deal with that more below, but the point I want to make about this is that the birth of the deliverer was preceded by an edict against children. Pharaoh feared the Jews were becoming numerous enough to overthrow Egypt, so he ordered all male children drowned in the Nile. It was, in effect, a primitive and cruel attempt at population control.

The third major deliverance event was, of course, the coming of the Messiah. When the visit from the wise men spooked Herod about the birth of the Messiah, he ordered all male children under two years of age to be killed. So like pharaoh, he acted out of fear and self-preservation. This prompted Matthew to quote a prophecy from Jeremiah 31:15:

“A voice is heard in Ramah,

mourning and great weeping,

Rachel weeping for her children

and refusing to be comforted,

because they are no more.” ^[1]

In the prophecy, Rachel represents the nation of Israel, the northern kingdom, because Rachel’s grandsons (sons of Joseph—Ephraim and Manasseh) were the two largest tribes in that kingdom. Israel was weeping for its lost innocence.

When I see the outright abuse and evil foisted upon our most vulnerable population by powerful forces with a gruesome agenda, I must echo Rachel’s sentiment here. Is the current war on children, families, and gender the precursor to another deliverance event? Are we getting to the point again where “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart [is] only evil all the time….[and] the Lord regret[s] that he had made human beings on the earth”?^[2] Has the corruption reached the limits of God’s tolerance? How close are we to the end of this era and possibly to the second coming of Christ and the new creation?

I want to examine the three most egregious, in my mind, attacks on children, the family, and gender in modern society to make my point: abortion, genital mutilation of children, and transgenderism. My goal here is to strip away the politics and agendas that overshadow these things to both shut out dissent and “normalize” this behavior, and to take a look at it for what it really is. As Christians, if we believe these things are not only bad, but evil, we can, if we start taking a stand and pushing against the evil woke, progressive mob, recover our culture and restore righteousness to the earth. I hope and pray this article will give you courage and strength to make that stand.

Abortion

“Exposure”: The Precursor to Abortion

[710] I will give you a pithy proof of this. An oracle came to Laius once—I will not say from Phoebus himself, but from his ministers—saying that he would suffer his doom at the hands of the child to be born to him and me. [715] And Laius—as, at least, the rumor goes—was murdered one day by foreign robbers at a place where the three highways meet. And the child’s birth was not yet three days past, when Laius pinned his ankles together* and had him thrown, by others’ hands, on a remote mountain.^[3]

* fastened together by driving a pin through them, so as to maim the child and thus lessen the chance of its being reared if it survived exposure.^[4]

The above passage from the English translation of Sophocles’s Oedipus Tyrannus (spoken by Iocasta, the mother of Laius’s exposed son) describes the ancient and often barbaric practice of “exposure.” In ancient times, if a child was unwanted, or in this case, feared because of some prophetic portent, parents or other elders would abandon the child in the wilderness to die alone, exposed to wild animals and the elements. Notice the eerie dispassionate tone she takes when speaking about the fate of her own child, a fate she seems wholly complicit in.

In the Bible, the practice is at least as old as Genesis 16, perhaps partially reflected in Sarai sending away Hagar and Ishmael. At least Sarai allowed the mother to care for the child (the angel of the Lord almost immediately restored them to Abram’s family unit). In Exodus 2, Moses is born to Levite parents under Pharaoh’s order to throw every male child into the Nile. Moses’s mother technically obeyed this command, but had put him in a papyrus basket, where he would be rescued by Pharaoh’s daughter and raised in Pharaoh’s court, with all the accompanying privileges.

The first chapter of Exodus doesn’t seem to indicate Pharaoh was concerned about any kind of prophecy, although pharaoh’s increased demands of their brick making were compelling the Israelites to cry out more to their God. Pharaoh’s fear of the Israelites was that they were becoming too numerous (Exodus 1:9), which prompted his fateful declaration. In other words, it was a form of population control imposed on an unwanted race of people. Kind of sounds like racism, right? Hitleresque? Legalized infanticide? Homicide of the innocent? Dare I say, “post-birth” or perinatal abortion?

Modern History of Abortion and Genocide

Let me preface this section by saying that I would not consider a medically necessary pregnancy termination to save the life of the mother an “abortion,” especially as that term is used today. If you’re terminating your pregnancy because it’s inconvenient or embarrassing for you, that’s the concept of abortion I’m writing about—the premeditated homicide of an infant prior to or around the time of birth with no indication of a medical emergency that threatens the life of health of the mother. If you’re terminating your pregnancy because your health or life is irreparably threatened, that’s not an “abortion” in my mind, and I’m not writing about those situations. If you’ve been in the dreadful situation of being a victim of rape or of a molestation or incest that resulted in pregnancy, I’m not writing about those situations, and it is not my place (nor anyone else’s) to pass judgment on women in those situations.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an avowed eugenicist and racist. In her twisted mind, it was necessary to leave the procreating to those who had wealth and access. Abortion is just one method the Left promotes to control population under the guise of “women’s rights.” What is even more disturbing are the attempts of the radical Left to promote and glorify abortion. Can we really say a person is “normal” if they’re celebrating the opportunity to kill an innocent child in the womb? What kind of “empowerment” for women is unfettered access to abortion when what they and their abortion doctor are taking power over is a defenseless child in the womb? How did we get here as a culture?

What kind of “empowerment” for women is unfettered access to abortion when what they and their abortion doctor are taking power over is a defenseless child in the womb?

Abortion isn’t just about women’s rights, either. In fact, I would argue that the “antihuman” philosophy has taken over. They have no compassion for the life of the unborn or the mental and physical health of the mother. Their main goal is depopulating the earth. Why? Is it because they want to become some elite group to control all the resources? There’s your eugenics. There are certainly inequities in abortion, with women below the poverty level and women of color getting abortions at a higher rate.[5] So I think it’s fair to ask the question if abortion is being promoted among these demographic groups because of elitist or even racist attitudes.

I also think there’s merit to the idea that the Left just hates the idea of a loving, nuclear family, especially if a child is rescued from an abortion by a loving family. I refuse to believe any child is unwanted. What kind of monsters do these people think the human race is? The Left knows that every child rescued from an abortion by a loving family, regardless of their religious or political affiliation, is potentially a witness against their demand for unfettered abortion access.

All this brings me to my major point about abortion in line with the theme of this article: abortion objectifies the child in the womb. The child becomes an unwanted item when they’re deemed to be an “inconvenience.” The irony of this is that some of these women may have an “unintended” pregnancy because they themselves were objectified by an unscrupulous man who just used them for sex and split the scene. How does it solve a consequence of objectification by objectifying the consequence of objectification?

Gender Confusion

Reassignment or Mutilation?

I am not ashamed of the absolute truths of Scripture, and I hope that my Christ-following brothers and sisters share that boldness. It’s what we need in times like these. When God said “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,” he was talking about individual human beings AND humanity as a collective whole. We, individually and together, reflect the glory and image of God’s creation, because we are the crowning piece of God’s creation. We were created to be stewards over God’s creation. Nothing else in God’s creation was given that status.

Genesis 1:27 speaks of our creation: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” “Mankind” is a singular noun in Hebrew, but it doesn’t necessarily refer to a person’s name. Here, it has the definite article associated with it, so it most likely refers to the human race, or humanity as a concept. The next two lines of the verse bear that out. The first “them” at the end of the second line is singular, and the first two lines are simply a chiasm to emphasize the point that God did the creating. The “them” at the end of the third line is plural, meaning that male and female are separate and the only two genders God created. And each has their own unique sex organs that differentiate based on the possible combinations of the sex genes. The sex organs are analogous: if they’re XX, you get ovaries, labia, and a clitoris; if they’re XY, you get testicles, a scrotum, and a penis.

The current trend of pushing kids—kids, mind you, under 10 years old in some cases—to get so-called “gender reassignment” surgery is absolutely disgusting. This is nothing more than genital mutilation akin to what we rightly condemn in other countries. These surgeries in many cases eliminate the possibility of reproduction because they remove the only sex organs they have. In other words, they’re removing the only phenotypical physical markers of gender and replacing them with a sham. I fail to understand how giving a transgender person parts that have limited functionality can help with gender dysphoria when the person knows their new parts aren’t really genuine. They can never fully realize the physical reality of being the gender they’re not born with.

Not only, then, is this push to get kids to question their gender rather than affirming the gender they were born with an objectification of children, making them pawns in a disturbing practice akin to surgical experimentation on children, it is also an objectification of gender, as if it’s something you can pick and choose or create your own variation thereof. Romans 1:26–27 says:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.^[6]

Of course, this most likely refers to consenting adult males and females. But isn’t this exactly the evil we’re foisting on children? We have subjected innocent children to a practice that describes the wrath of God. See what you think about this passage if we put it in the context of what these radical cultural thugs are doing to kids with gender dysphoria:

Because of this, God gave the adults over to shameful abuses of power. Adults coerced the young girls to exchange future natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, adults also coerced the young boys to also abandon future natural relations with women so they would be inflamed with lust for one another. These men and women committed shameful acts upon boys and girls, abused their power and the trust of the children, and should receive in themselves the due penalty for their error.^[7]

Seems pretty harsh, doesn’t it? But when what they’re doing to these kids is essentially legalized child abuse, I think the rebuke should fit the crime. These people are perpetuating a cultural lie and have deceived or convinced many that such treatment of children should be normative. If you’re a parent and concerned about how this is impacting your children, or if others are influencing your children under the guise of “trusted adults,” you must be the ones to advocate for your children if you don’t want this happening to them. My purpose in writing this is not to offer counseling advice, especially since each situation would prevent its own unique set of circumstances.

Drag Queens: Objectifying and Degrading Women

As I was preparing to write this section, Tucker Carlson had a story about “A Drag Queen Christmas” show “for all ages.” Video from the performance shows scenes of what you might see in a strip joint. They have to blur out the (apparently) boxed, oversized “breasts” of a drag queen, and there’s a sketch about “Screwdolph the Red-Nippled Reindeer,” which features two men in reindeer costumes simulating sodomy. Some of the drag queens were interviewing kids(!!) in the front row of the show as young as nine years old! Why is it even legal to expose kids to this? This smacks of grooming through and through. A similar event called “Drag the Kids to Pride” happened in Austin and Dallas this past summer, where kids are encouraged to give tips to the drag dancers. Note the signage that’s hardly appropriate for kids.

Then there’s the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. They mock the chastity and poverty of true nuns by their very name, which is nothing more than hate speech against Catholic Christians and especially against Catholic nuns. Many of them paint their faces white. I’m just wondering how that’s any less racist than those who put on black face to mock or imitate black people? Drag is little more than normalized misogyny perpetuated by biological males against genetic females. It is toxic masculinity at the extremes. Why do so many people accept this? This is yet another example of objectifying gender, and especially objectifying women. The trouble is, under so-called diversity, inclusion, and equity, no one ever thinks to look at it for what it is because the wokaholic, “politically correct” (what an oxymoron!) crowd wants to defend their fringe behavior.

Drag is little more than normalized misogyny perpetuated by biological males against genetic females. It is toxic masculinity at the extremes.

Balancing Survival and Compassion

This is going to be hard to take for a lot of people. As Christians, we typically don’t fight by burning down cities, throwing frozen water bottles at the police, or tearing down statues and memorials. We have our words, and we have The Word. The antireligious bigots out there know that, which is why they’re trying so hard to alter the traditional understanding of language, redefine the traditional meaning of words, and hide or rewrite history. This is truly Orwellian. When I read 1984 last year, I could see just about everything that was happening in that forward-looking novel was and still is happening in our world today.

Jesus reserved his harshest words for those religious leaders who oppressed the people by abusing and misusing the cultural power they had as religious leaders. Jesus also treated harshly those who insulted the character of his Father in his Father’s own house by charging a fee to convert Roman coinage into Temple money. Jesus’s kindest and most compassionate words were for those who were oppressed or manipulated by the powerful. I realize there are many people who feel trapped and are doing what they think is best for themselves, not realizing they may be missing a better way or a higher calling because they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge God, or they have a distorted view of who God is and how and why he created the world and each of us to live in it and have dominion over it according to his plan.

My words in this article are intended for those “pharisees” who are arrogant enough to flaunt law and custom to impose a cultural fascism on the rest of us. My words are for those who have willingly “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” and “who freely strut about when what is vile is honored by the human race” (Psalm 12:8). If you’re one of the masses who have been caught up in this because it was popular or trendy or “enlightened,” and you’re just not sensing the satisfaction or peace you were promised, then I urge you to seek out a friendly church where you will be welcomed. As I said, Christians fight with words and ideas, because we know God’s Word never returns void. But we also extend love and compassion to all who desire to know the peace and security of a relationship with a living, loving, forgiving God.

My words and ideas are my own, supplemented with the sources I’ve documented herein.

Scott Stocking

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

^[2] The New International Version. 2011. Genesis 6:5b–6. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[3] Sophocles. 1887. The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. Edited with Introduction and Notes by Sir Richard Jebb. Lines 710–719. Edited by Sir Richard Jebb. Medford, MA: Cambridge University Press.

^[4] Jebb, Richard C. n.d. Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus Tyrannus (English). Line 718. Medford, MA: Perseus Digital Library.

[5] Dehlendorf C, Harris LH, Weitz TA. Disparities in abortion rates: a public health approach. Am J Public Health. 2013 Oct;103(10):1772-9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301339. Epub 2013 Aug 15. PMID: 23948010; PMCID: PMC3780732. Disparities in Abortion Rates: A Public Health Approach – PMC (nih.gov)

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

^[7] Romans 1:26–27. Modified for emphasis.

Comments (2)

October 3, 2022

Strength From (and for) Our Suffering: Paul’s Commissioning of Timothy (2 Timothy 1:1–14)

Filed under: 1 Timothy,2 Timothy,Biblical Studies,Courage,Ecclesiology,Faith, Faithfulness,Romans — Scott Stocking @ 10:22 pm
Tags: Apostleship, Family of Faith, Ordination, Paul and Timothy, Preaching, Psalm 37, Timothy

I preached this sermon October 2, 2022, at Peace Presbyterian Church in Omaha, NE. I forgot to bring my voice recorder, so unfortunately, I do not have an audio file for it. Peace Presbyterian opened in 1989 when the Presbytery closed down the Waterloo Presbyterian Church and my uncle, Kenneth Bunnell, Jr., moved from the pulpit there to Peace.

“Shrinking back” is the opposite of “faithfulness.”

I think most of us have had someone near and dear to us in our lives that wasn’t a blood relative. For some of us, it was someone we looked up to who was “cool” in their own way, and maybe even one who, although we couldn’t admit it out loud, we wanted as that third “parent” or our safety net when we thought our own parents didn’t understand us.

For others, maybe you were that cool one or caring one who latched on to a kid or young adult who truly needed a better environment or solid guidance and direction to get or keep their life on a good path. And when they succeeded, your heart filled with pride just as if they were your own child.

We see in the New Testament just such a relationship between the Apostle Paul and a young disciple named Timothy, and we can trace the evolution of their relationship throughout Paul’s letters. We first meet the “disciple” Timothy in Acts 16:1, in the town of Lystra, on Paul’s second missionary journey. A few chapters later, Luke calls Timothy and Erastus Paul’s “helpers.” It would seem Timothy had a strong desire help Paul spread the gospel across Asia Minor.

As we progress through Paul’s letters, we begin to see Paul’s descriptions of Timothy becoming more personal and familial: In Romans 16:21, “Timothy, my coworker”; in 1 Corinthians 4:17, “Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord”; in 2 Corinthians 1:1 and Colossians 1:1, “Timothy our brother.” In Philippians, it seems Timothy has “risen” to equal status with Paul: “Servants of Jesus Christ.”

And when we come to the letters addressed to Timothy in the New Testament, we see the depth of Paul’s love for Timothy: “My true son in the faith”; “My dear son.” The two letters to Timothy are the first of only four letters Paul wrote to an individual instead of to a church. If it was even possible then, Timothy seems to have a risen to the status of an “Apostle-come-lately” just as Paul was. Paul’s letters to Timothy, then, are guidance on how to raise up men and women who could lead in the local church. Let’s listen to the first part of 2 Timothy chapter 1 and see how Paul speaks to Timothy in the historical context, and how that applies to those of us who lead and serve in the church in the modern context.

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, in keeping with the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus, ²To Timothy, my dear son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

³I thank God, whom I serve, as my ancestors did, with a clear conscience, as night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers. ⁴Recalling your tears, I long to see you, so that I may be filled with joy. ⁵I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also.

⁶For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. ⁷For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline. ⁸So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me his prisoner. Rather, join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God. ⁹He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, ¹⁰but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. ¹¹And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. ¹²That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet this is no cause for shame, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day.

¹³What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. ¹⁴Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.^[1]

Paul is not just making a passing reference to the influence of his ancestors on his faith and service in verse 3; he mentions them as a comparison to the faith Timothy’s mother Eunice, who was a Jew, and her mother (presumably) Lois had and how they had passed that faith down to Timothy. In verse 4, Paul also seems to allude here to his tearful farewell meeting with the Ephesian elders in Miletus, as we read about in Acts 20. He knew suffering and prison awaited him in the future as he returns to Jerusalem, but he was set on pressing forward nonetheless.

In verse 6, Paul sets the tone for the encouragement he is offering Timothy by first reminding Timothy of his own ordination, a confirmation of his calling: “Fan into flame the gift of God!” It would seem after the personal instructions and teaching of the first letter, Paul is now commissioning Timothy to prepare him for his first located ministry. We know from 1 Timothy that Paul had appointed him to preach in Ephesus, perhaps one of the largest group of believers in Asia Minor. Timothy is apparently coming to the church on the heels of Paul’s 2+ years of ministry in Ephesus, perhaps just before he’s arrested if we can assume that from v. 8, so it would have been a daunting task for anyone to step into those shoes.

That’s why in vs. 7, Paul reminds Timothy that the Holy Spirit dwelling in us “does not make us timid, but gives us power, love, and self-discipline.” Timothy may realize that he could face the same fate as Paul in being arrested (and indeed, we learn from the end of Hebrews that he had in fact been in prison), but Paul knows the only way to put forth a convincing gospel presentation about life in the hereafter is to proclaim it with and in the power and authority of the Holy Spirit. The message of the gospel must stand in contrast to the spiritual darkness of the world around them, full of light and truth. Otherwise, what would be the attraction of the gospel?

Also note in vs. 7 that, even though Paul is addressing Timothy personally in the whole letter, the promise of the power of the Spirit of God is not just for Timothy. When Paul speaks of “us” here, he’s not using the royal “we.” At the very least, Paul is may be referring back to his ancestors and Timothy’s mother and grandmother whom he mentioned in his opening; it’s even more likely that he is including all believers everywhere. You only need to flip back a few pages into 1 Timothy to see this is the case, where he not only gives basic instructions for praying men, modestly-dress women, and lonely widows in chapters 2 and 6 (all of which indicate some sort of submission or humility before Christ, so there’s no sexism there), but also instructions in 1 Timothy 3 for the character qualities of overseers, deacons, and women who were leading in the local church at that time.

In verse 8, Paul puts some meat on the bone as to what it means to be timid by exhorting Timothy to “not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me his prisoner.” Paul is speaking here of his own “testimony,” (in the language of the New Testament, the same word from which we get the English word “martyr”), that got him thrown into prison. That testimony was not just the words Paul spoke about the gospel, but the life he lived for the gospel. It involved his whole self, mind, body, and soul, or as Paul puts it in verse 11: “herald, apostle, and teacher.” Paul then makes Timothy an offer some might not be willing to take: “You’re living in God’s power now, so go ahead and join me in my own suffering.”

Now verse 8 here sounds much like Romans 1:16–17:

¹⁶For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. ¹⁷For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”^[2]

The gospel of Christ is powerful to bring salvation. But what gives the gospel, the “good news” of Christ, its power? It’s powerful because it was perfectly lived out by God’s own son, Jesus Christ. That’s the crux of the argument Paul lays out in the first 8 chapters of Romans: Jesus did not break the law of God, so he was the only one to earn the designation “righteous.” Look at the last phrase in Romans 1:17: “The righteous will live by faith.” The Hebrew of Habakkuk 2:4, from which Paul quotes this verse, is a bit more nuanced: “The righteous person will live by his faithfulness.” It’s not clear why the NT translator didn’t follow the OT translation here, but do you see the implications here? If, as Paul says in Romans 3, “There is no one righteous, not even one,” then who is the righteous one who lives by faithfulness in Romans 1:17? That could only be Jesus, right? The author of Hebrews puts it this way: “But my righteous one will live by faith. And I take no pleasure in the one who shrinks back. But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved.”

So we see more clearly now the urgent reason why Paul is so strongly exhorting Timothy here: Being timid about the Gospel; being ashamed of the Gospel; fretting about the suffering for the gospel that is difficult for sure, but for most, nothing like what Jesus himself went through, is “shrinking back” according to the author of Hebrews. “Shrinking back” is the opposite of “faithfulness.”

Getting back to the 2 Timothy passage, Paul tells us in vs. 10 that Jesus’s life and crucifixion worked to “destroy death” and to bring “life and immortality to light through the gospel.” As the perfect lamb of God, Jesus’s own physical body was “destroyed” on the cross so that in his death and resurrection, he could destroy death and its power forever! As believers, we have been made alive in Christ. Our eternal life doesn’t begin when we die. Our eternal life has already begun in Christ.

In 2 Timothy 1:12, Paul again reminds Timothy that suffering for the gospel is no cause for shame. As Jesus said, we only need faith the size of a mustard seed to move mountains. Taking that first step of faith, planting that mustard seed, if you will, can be difficult. But once we start down that road of faithfulness to what he’s called us to, it becomes difficult to turn back. We may feel unworthy like the servants in the Luke passage we read, but we have a sure hope that our own faithfulness will be rewarded. Like Paul, we can have assurance that God is with us along the way. I love the last part of vs. 12 here: “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day.”

Paul closes out his charge to Timothy by calling on him to keep the faith and do his part to “guard the good deposit…with the help of the Holy Spirit.” This hearkens back to Deuteronomy, where the Lord, through Moses, repeats the refrain throughout the book to “be careful to obey what I’ve commanded. Obedience and faithfulness are not accidents. They are intentional choices we make to step toward and into the will of God.

What are some practical ways we can guard the good deposit? That’s where Psalm 37 comes in, the one we read earlier in the service. It involves both “dos” and “don’ts.”

Trust in the Lord (2x)	Do not fret (3x)
Dwell in the land	Do not be envious
Do good	Refrain from anger
Commit your way to the Lord	Turn from wrath
Take delight in the Lord	Turn away from godless chatter (1 Timothy 6:20)
Be still	Turn away from the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge (1 Timothy 6:20)
Wait patiently

Most of us have heard the phrase, “Let’s get ready to rumble.” Michael Buffer, the famous professional ring announcer for boxing matches, coined and trademarked the phrase to kick off boxing matches. As Christians, we face a “rumble” of our own when it comes to the world. Even in Timothy’s day, he needed the encouragement of his mentor and coworker Paul to not get discouraged in the face of the spiritual battles they faced with respect to persecution. This is why it is so important to hold onto the fellowship we have with one another. As Paul did for Timothy, we can encourage each other and draw strength from one another when the rumble comes our way. The scriptures we looked at this morning lay out a strategy for us to stand strong and keep the faith. Let’s go from here and advance the kingdom in the power of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

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

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

August 7, 2022

Saved by the Bris: Colossians 2 and the “Circumcision of Christ”

Filed under: Christology,Circumcision,Colossians,Diagrams,Ecclesiology,Greek,Immersion/Baptism,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 11:38 am
Tags: Chiastic structure, Circumcision of Christ

Listen to “Saved by the Bris”

Sermon preached at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, July 24, 2022. Lightly edited for publication.

I want to pose a question to you as I begin this morning, and I promise I will help you realize the answer by the time I’m done about 25 minutes from now. Here’s the question: What is “the circumcision of Christ”? The follow-up question to that is: “How does it save us?” Intrigued? Good. Let’s dive into Colossians chapter 2.

Colossae was a diminishing river town along a major trade route in what is now southern Turkey between Ephesus on the west coast and the Euphrates River in the east. Its close neighbors, Laodicea and Hierapolis had long before New Testament times overtaken it in prominence and prosperity. But that didn’t stop Epaphras, a convert from Paul’s two-and-a-half-year ministry in Ephesus, from founding a successful congregation there in the mid first century.

At some point early in the life of that congregation, they came under the attack or influence of some heretical teaching. It’s not really clear what exactly the nature of that teaching was, but we can glean some ideas based on the themes Paul addresses in the letter. Most likely, the primary challenge to the Christian faith that was emerging at that time, Gnosticism, was that threat. Gnosticism says that anything done in the flesh is evil, therefore, nothing we do really matters for eternity. What was important in Gnosticism was that you know and believe the right things, things about God and the order of the universe and spiritual powers at work in the universe.

This is why Paul spends a significant part of the first chapter writing about who Christ is and revealing some very important truths about Christ that we don’t get anywhere else. Listen to his words about Christ in chapter 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation^[1]

Note what he says here: Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. God didn’t have a wife in heaven, of course, so “firstborn” doesn’t mean a literal birth, but that he is the primary and ultimate expression of every God-created element, every being, every creature born at any other time in the world. We know from John 1 that he was with God in the beginning when he began creating the world. In Genesis 1, we hear the refrain over and over again: “And God saw that it was good.”

But the ultimate knock to the Gnostic heresy is Colossians 1:19: “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” That must have blown the Gnostics minds! In their thinking, there’s no way a holy God would have or could have put all his fullness into a physical form they believed to be thoroughly evil. And not only that, Paul emphasizes in vs. 22 that it is through Christ’s physical body, through his death on the cross, that we are reconciled to God. I can imagine the Gnostics were running away with their fingers in their ears screaming “la la la la la la, I can’t hear you!”

Paul goes on to exhort the Colossians to stand firm in the face of this heresy and in fact commends them for doing just that. And he also makes the argument against the Gnostic heresy personal by saying that his own physical suffering for the church is working to spread the gospel and encourage his readers all the more toward undying faithfulness.

And so we come to our passage this morning: Colossians 2:6–15. Let’s look first at vv. 6–8 and see how Paul makes the transition here to the heart of the passage that begins in vs. 9.

6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.^{^[2]}

Paul recognizes that the Colossians are living faithfully and holding fast to the Gospel message that Epaphras had brought to them in the beginning. It’s good to know that not every church he wrote to had problems from within, as he must address in other letters. The Colossians are exemplary in that regard, but they are still dogged by the outside influence of some Gnostics.

So Paul again addresses the Gnostic heresy here with his warning about “hollow and deceptive philosophy” and the “elemental spiritual forces of this world,” which are probably nothing more than angels, demons, and perhaps some low-level spiritual powers and authorities. The Jews of Paul’s day had access to a great deal of apocryphal, pseudobiblical literature and oral traditions that told tales of angels, demons, and other spiritual forces. Some of these had the names of patriarchs and prophets attached to them, which may have given them a false veneer of credibility. But Paul is reaffirming that everything we need to know about our salvation and about how God interacts with his creation comes from Jesus himself. Let’s look at vv. 9–15 from the English Standard Version, mostly. In verses 11–13, I’m going to give my own translation, partially because most English translations either read too much into what Paul is saying or they don’t respect the strong verbal parallels with similar passages in Ephesians.

A For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him,

B who is the head of all rule and authority.

C In whom you were also circumcised with a hands-free circumcision by the putting off (τῇ ἀπεκδύσει, see vs. 15) of the body of flesh, that is, by the “circumcision” of Christ.

D You were buried AND raised with him in baptism

E through the faithful work of God

D’ who raised Christ from the dead. Even though you were dead in your sins

C’ and the uncircumcision of your flesh,

D” God made you alive with Christ, forgiving all your sins.

C” by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

B ‘ He disarmed (disrobed? ἀπεκδυσάμενος) the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame,

A’ by triumphing over them in him.^[3]

Before we put meat on the bones here, I’d like you to take a look at how the passage is formatted above. You can see how it has successive indents as you read through the passage, and then the indents start to move leftward in the last half of the passage. The bold statement in the center (line E) that has the greatest indent is the key point in the passage: God raises us up and makes us alive in him because of his faithfulness to us. God’s faithfulness is what gives the Colossians the courage to stand up to the Gnosticism they encountered and to stand firm in their faith in spite of sometimes intense opposition. And God is still faithful today, so that you and I can have that same confidence in him to stand firm and carry on with our respective ministries and mission.

You will notice that I’ve italicized some words as well. In addition to similar index indents, those italicized words help you see the verbal parallels between the different parts of the passage. So, for example, in lines B & B’ of the passage, you’ll see the words “rule and authority” highlighted.

If you remember at the beginning, I asked you to dwell on the question, “What is the circumcision of Christ”? It is in the structure of this passage as I’ve laid it out here that we get that answer. Look at verse 11 (line C). Notice that a form of the word “circumcise” is used three times here. Then look down to line C’ (v. 13b): there’s the word “uncircumcision.” At that point, the outline “backtracks” a couple levels to previous verbal connections. Line C” (vs. 14), then, is at the same outline level as the circumcision phrases. But instead of using “circumcision” here, he makes a statement about the crucifixion: “This he removed from our midst, nailing it to the cross.” So here’s the answer to the question: “The circumcision of Christ” is in fact the crucifixion! The crucifixion is, if you’ll allow me this, the circumcision to end all circumcisions. Here’s the logic behind this.

Paul’s use of the phrase “removed from our midst” sounds very much like the statement in vs. 11 about the “putting off” of the body of flesh. And given that Colossians and Ephesians have dozens of verbal parallels, this sounds a lot like Paul’s discussion of this topic in Ephesians 4:22–24:

22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off (ἀποθέσθαι) your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on (ἐνδύσασθαι) the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.^[4]

The word for “putting on” the new self is the exact opposite of the word for “putting off” the body of flesh in Colossians. In Ephesians 2:3, Paul speaks of us “gratifying the cravings of our flesh,” from which God saved us. He says a little later in 2:15 something very similar to our Colossians passage about “waging war in his flesh against the commandments and regulations” and making peace with the new creation we are in Christ. The original act of circumcision was intended to set Israelite males apart from all others. It was a sign of the original covenant, but it had no power to save. The crucifixion, however, when we believe in its efficacy, not only sets us apart, but prepares our “new creation” bodies by putting off the whole old person and putting on the new to receive the fullness of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

This is what baptism (practiced as immersion in the early church) represents as well: connecting with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and recognizing the connection with the body of Christ and newness of life we have in him. And all this is possible because, as the central verse of our passage says, God is faithful to work in and through us for the glory of his kingdom.

So, now that we have the theology out of the way, what does that mean for how we live our “new creation” lives in the kingdom of God? Well, Colossians isn’t just about theology. Here are just a few of the exhortations from Paul for us from chapters 1 & 2:

1:23: “Continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope of the Gospel.”

1:28: “So that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ.”

2:2: “That they may be encouraged in heart and united in love.”

2:4: “That no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.”

2:6–7: “Continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith…overflowing with thankfulness.”

2:8: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.”

2:20: “Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules?”

2:16: “Don’t let anyone judge you.” (repeat)

Here’s the bottom line: Colossians says that in Christ, you have been brought to fullness. What that means here is that you have everything you need in Christ to carry out the ministries and missions he’s called you to, individually or collectively. Your faith in Christ is your own. You’re the only one who will answer to God for it before the throne. Your faith doesn’t belong to a family member. It doesn’t belong to a friend. It doesn’t belong to a pastor. It doesn’t belong to a congregation, although we hope you’ll share your faith with your congregation, friends, and family. And dare I say it doesn’t belong to any earthly institution or establishment of religion. The Holy Spirit alone determines how his gifts are distributed, and he does so without regard to where you find yourself in any local congregation or church body.

And speaking of gifts of the Spirit, your calling in Christ is your own, except to the extent that that calling leads you to find common cause with others in the local congregation or the broader body of Christ. We are saved as a part of the body of Christ, not apart from the body of Christ. As Paul said in 2:16, “Don’t let anyone judge you” for how you choose to live out your calling. Romans says his gifts and calling are without repentance. God knew what he was doing when he called you to your ministry or mission, and no one should have the power to take that away from you.

And if you want to explore Colossians further, try reading it alongside Ephesians some time. I said at the top of my message that the congregation at Colossae probably started while Paul was preaching in Ephesus. It’s no accident that many of the themes in Ephesians have found their way into Colossians, but in a different order. Ephesians has a very sophisticated organization, while Colossians is, to be kind, a rearranged and shortened version of Ephesians for a different audience and purpose. I guarantee such a study would be very fruitful.

20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.^[5]

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

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

^[3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2016. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles. Verses 11–13 are my own translation.

^[4] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

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

Comments (3)

November 9, 2021

I Will Build My Church (Matthew 16:13-20)

Filed under: Ecclesiology,Greek — Scott Stocking @ 5:38 pm
Tags: 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 3:9, 1 Corinthians 8:1, Acts 20:32, Acts 2:42, Acts 9:31, Build, Early Church, Matthew, Romans 15:20

Note: Preached at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, NE, on 11/7/21; also planned for Wheeler Grove Church, Carson, IA, 11/14/21. The passage came up in the lectionary for 8/27/23, so I preached it again, swapping out Mt. Rushmore & the Golden Gate Bridge for the St. Louis Arch & the Eiffel Tower. I forgot to turn the voice recorder on at the beginning, but did turn it on after the two monument stories and captured the meat of the message.

I’ve got a little trivia challenge for you this morning. I’m going to give you the names of a couple people who built or created famous things in the last 100 years that are still with us today, but whose names have been long forgotten by most.

The first may be familiar to some: Gutzon Borglum was born in Idaho and lived in Fremont, Nebraska, when he was 7 years old. He eventually became a famous artist, achieving early fame for painting a portrait of General John C. Fremont for the general’s wife. He later sculpted a colossal head of Abraham Lincoln, which is still on display today in the Capitol Rotunda. This inspired his most famous work, however, which perhaps now you’ve guessed: the four super colossal heads of American presidents carved into Mount Rushmore.

Joseph Baermann Strauss answered the call to build an impressive structure that, interestingly enough, also had a connection to General Fremont. Strauss’s task was to connect the two shores on either side of a strait in a region General Fremont had named “Chrysopylae.” Politicians of the day thought the structure would have a price tag of nearly $100,000,000 in his day, but Strauss was able to build it for the modest price of about $30,000,000. Oh for politicians who could create such infrastructure savings in our day! Chrysopylae is Greek for “Golden Gate,” and thus was origin of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.

So we come to our passage today where someone whose name we haven’t forgotten, and I hope we haven’t forgotten “who” he is, wants to build something greater and more enduring than either of these creations.

Read Matthew 16:13–20

This passage is at the heart of Matthew’s gospel and reveals that “Aha!” moment for the disciples when they finally realize who Jesus is and what his mission is on Earth. To put it in context, it comes after the stories where Jesus feeds both the 5,000 and 4,000, with his walking on water in between. Immediately after this Caesarean confession, we have the story of the Transfiguration, where he proves beyond a shadow of doubt who Peter says he is.

In light of the events leading up to the passage, Jesus gives his disciples a little quiz, as it were. “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They of course give a variety of wild guesses, I mean, answers from the broad extent of Jewish history: Elijah? Jeremiah or one of the prophets? John the Baptist? For whatever reason, the disciples can’t seem to bring themselves to admit what they’ve begun suspecting all along. Notice, though, how Jesus makes a subtle shift in his second quiz question. He doesn’t ask the disciples who they say the Son of Man is: He asks them, “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answers, perhaps hoping he won’t stick his foot in his mouth as he’s prone to do. Now there were actually two Simons among the disciples: Simon the Zealot and Simon Peter. Matthew doesn’t call him “Simon” much in his gospel, only a couple times early on to show there were two Simons among the disciples and one more time in chapter 17. Here in vs. 16, this is the first and only time Matthew uses both names side by side in introducing Jesus’s statement where he officially renames Simon to Peter.

Peter does NOT stick his foot in his mouth on this occasion (but does in the very next section!), and Jesus makes a word play out of his name. Peter’s name in Greek (Πέτρος, petros), if it were just a regular noun, would mean something akin to “boulder,” while the word for “rock” (πέτρα, petra) upon which Jesus says he’ll build his church most likely refers to the concept of “bedrock,” the hard granite that you see, for example, at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that the Colorado River has cut through.

At this point in the passage, we have at least two major questions to answer: What exactly is the “rock” that Jesus refers to here, and what does it mean that Jesus will “build” (οἰκοδομεω, oikodomeō) his “church” (ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia)?

What (or Who) Is the “Rock”?

Believers through the ages who may or may not have engaged in theological studies have debated just what the “rock” symbolizes here. Since they’re in Caesarea Philippi at this point, it’s generally agreed that it’s not referring to any kind of physical location nearby, although there was a cave in that region that had been dubbed “the Gate of Hades” by some.

Some have seen here a direct connection to Peter, citing Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, where we see the first mass conversion of people from all over to being Jesus followers. The Catholics take this a step farther and list Peter as the first Pope. And Jesus even tells Simon Peter that he’ll give him the keys to the kingdom. But since Jesus says, “I will build my church,” it seems unlikely that he would impart that responsibility to one man.

Ephesians 2:20 broadens this concept a bit and says that the church is built “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” This has merit on a couple levels for understanding what “rock” means. First, assigning responsibility for the church to a group of contemporary apostles creates a system of accountability so that no one person is initially responsible for establishing “the church.” Second, this passage is the only time in the gospels where we see the word “church” used, and in the context of the story, the NT church hadn’t even started yet! However, in the Greek version of the OT, the word translated “church” here was often used of the “congregation” of Israel. That would make the connection to the prophets. Third, since Paul describes Christ as the “chief cornerstone,” Christ is the one that sets the standard by which the rest of the “church” is measured and built.

Still others suggest that this “rock” is the truth of Peter’s confession, or more broadly, the teachings of Jesus which feature prominently in Matthew’s gospel. In the church I attend, we ask a new convert if they believe that “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” This would also fit with Romans 10:9-10: “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.”

Now just as God never wanted Israel to have an earthly king, so also do I think that Jesus never wanted one man (other than himself) to have authority over all believers. I think a combination of the last two views I mentioned is probably the best understanding of “rock” here: the church would have a solid foundation, and those who would become “bricks” in its construction have means of doing so by acknowledging the cornerstone.

What Does Jesus Mean by “Build”?

This brings us to the second question: what does Jesus mean when he says, “I will build my church.” Just as this larger passage is the crux of Matthew’s gospel, so is this statement a crux between the ministry of Jesus on earth and the ministry of his church after his death. Now I’ve already mentioned that this passage is the only place in the gospels where the word church is used. Of course, the gospels were written after the church was formed, so it’s not too surprising to find it here. After all, as I said earlier, it may be reasonable to assume Jesus was referring to the congregation of Israel.

But what you may not know is that the word “build” or “building” in the gospels always refers to a physical building. So it’s worth asking, at least for the moment, if perhaps Jesus himself was referring to some kind of building, like a temple or a synagogue, when he made this statement. As you might guess, though, it’s pretty clear that Jesus isn’t referring to a building at all, but to his followers, a “congregation,” if you will.

1 Corinthians 1:2

Overlapping structure of the verse

A To the “called” (“church”) ekklēsia

B of God

C sanctified (i.e., “made holy”)

B′ in Christ Jesus

A′ “called”

C′ holy (=sanctified)

A″ those who “call upon”

B″ the name of our Lord Jesus Christ

Above, you’ll see a small chart on 1 Corinthians 1:2. I believe Paul here is drawing on the root meaning of ekklēsia, which is the word we translate “church” in the NT. It literally means “those called out from.” Paul uses a rhetorical device of his day to define who the church is, a sort of reverse parallel structure that suggests he put some thought into this. You can see it in the chart with the parallel elements identified by the capital letters: “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours.” The church is made up of those who are called to be holy, and who call upon the name of Jesus.

Now I do want to offer a bit of a caveat here: just because “church” refers to people doesn’t mean the concept of a church building should be tossed out the window. Even in Paul’s day, the believers met in their respective homes or early on, even in the synagogues, so those who gathered had a place they could identify as their spiritual home and could use as a central place to carry out ministry to their respective communities. I’ve heard a lot of people say they don’t need to belong to a church to be a Christian, but it sure makes it easier to live the Christian life if you have a place you can call home and where you know that you’ll be welcome good times or bad.

This idea of “church” being people or a congregation is borne out when we look at the words “build” and “building” in Paul’s letters. With just a few exceptions in some OT references, these words NEVER refer to a physical building, but to the people who make up the “church” or to the concepts that support the truth of the Christian message. And several times, the words are used with the word for “church.” Let’s look at some of these passages. In these contexts, often these words are translated as “edify,” “edification,” “strengthen,” or some other synonym.

Let’s look first at how this concept of “building” or “edifying” relates to the church.

In Acts 9:31, shortly after Paul’s Damascus Road conversion, Luke mentions that “the church…enjoyed a time of peace and was strengthened.”

In Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesian believers in Acts 20:32, he concludes, “Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”

In 1 Corinthians 3:9, Paul tells the Corinthian believers: “For we are coworkers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.”

Later in chapter 14, Paul exhorts the Corinthians on the matter of tongues and prophecy in their gatherings, capturing the concept of “edification” several times, including vs. 26: “When you come together….everything must be done so that the church may be built up.”

I’ve already mentioned Ephesians 2, but later in chapter 4, Paul says this: “From him [Jesus] the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love as each part does its work.”

Acts 2:42 shows us how the church functioned in the early days after Peter’s Pentecost sermon. “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to the fellowship of the breaking of the bread, and to the prayers.” These “prayers” were probably the daily prayers in the Temple. That was probably the only place big enough to accommodate 3,000 new converts! Acts 2 goes on to say how they met together in homes and had everything in common, taking turns sharing meals in their homes.

In other verses, we see the “how” of edification. In Romans 15:20, Paul speaks of his desire to preach where no one else has so he’s not building on someone else’s foundation. In 1 Corinthians 8:1, he says “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” Twice in 2 Corinthians, Paul mentions his authority to “build up” believers through preaching and exhortation that may have been difficult for that church to accept, preaching that stepped on their toes, if you will. In Galatians 2:18, Paul is “building” an argument for justification by faith as opposed to the Law. And in Ephesians 4:29, Paul says our speech should be wholesome, “Helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”

We see the many ways that we can be the church and that Christ builds his church through us, not just amongst ourselves, but out in the mission field of our immediate circle of influence. To borrow a phrase from my wife’s profession, these are the “activities of daily living” for the Christian: sharing the good news with those who’ve never heard it; showing love, care, and compassion; having the difficult conversations with those who need strong encouragement; defending the truth of God’s word; and taming our tongues.

Now there’s one more concept in this passage we need to address. After Jesus says he will build his church, he adds the promise that “the Gates of Hades will not overcome it.” It’s important that we understand just what this means. When Jesus says “will not overcome it,” he’s not talking about hell advancing on the church, trying to destroy it. He’s really talking about the church advancing on the gates of Hades, which do not have the strength to withstand the advance of God’s people, God’s army. Ephesians says God has given “incomparably great power for us who believe,” so we should never think that Satan will win. We look forward to the kingdom of heaven with its pearl gates that open to streets of gold (see what I did there?).

Joseph Strauss wrote a couple poems about the Golden Gate Bridge upon its completion. One stanza from The Mighty Task Is Done struck me as being particularly relevant for the Church because it can allude to the battles we face each day, and I’ll close with this:

An Honored cause and nobly fought

And that which they so bravely wrought,

Now glorifies their deed,

No selfish urge shall stain its life,

Nor envy, greed, intrigue, nor strife,

Nor false, ignoble creed.

Peace to all of you, and thank you for allowing me to share with you again.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My opinions are my own.

July 26, 2012

The Mystery of Immersion (Baptism)

Filed under: 1 Peter,Acts,Baptism of Jesus,Colossians,Ecclesiology,Faith, Faithfulness,forgiveness,Immersion/Baptism,New Testament,Romans,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 5:59 am
Tags: baptism and death, baptism by immersion, Baptism in Romans, Romans Study 2026, significance of baptism, significance of immersion

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

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

Mystery of Immersion (Baptism), Part Two (focus on Romans 1-11)

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

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

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

Some Questions about Immersion

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

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

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

Putting God in Box

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

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

Objective Truth or Subjective Mystery?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Transubstantiate or Not to Transubstantiate

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

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

Conclusion

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

Peace,

Scott

Comments (11)

April 22, 2012

Sing a New Song (Psalm 98; Ephesians 5:18–21)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Ephesians,New Testament,Old Testament,Psalms — Scott Stocking @ 7:34 am

NOTE: The following is revised and expanded from an article I wrote that appeared in the February 4, 2001, edition of Christian Standard.

Sports fans are passionate people. They love their favorite teams and cheer them on with great enthusiasm. But sometimes their passion gets out of control, and violence erupts. We have seen this on a number of occasions, especially when a favorite team wins a big game or a national championship. Revelry and carousing take place in the streets, some even firing guns into the air, while others are hurt or injured from brawls that break out.

Don’t Get Drunk on Wine. . .

The country witnessed this behavior in 2000 when Los Angeles residents rioted after the Lakers won the NBA title. No doubt in many of these incidents of individuals or crowds getting out of hand, alcohol was a major contributing factor. Alcohol breaks down our inhibitions and our sense of self-control and leads to all kinds of misbehavior. Although Midwesterners are a little more subdued in their celebrations, I have no doubt that St. Louisans lined Busch Brewery’s pockets after Games 6 and 7 of the 2011 World Series.

Expressing passion for a sports team can be turned into a positive model of worship. After all, the word “fan” comes from the word “fanatic.” Do we love God and express our praise for him as much as we do our favorite teams? Hasn’t God done much more than win a World Series or an NBA title? Now granted, I don’t want us going out and getting drunk for Jesus. Eph 5:18 provides a good balance for us when celebrating what God has done in our lives: “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” Paul warns that controlled substances and uncontrolled behaviors are not the proper way to celebrate or to let off steam at the extremes of life. These only lead to trouble, hardship, and sin.

Instead, Be Filled with the Spirit

Instead, Paul exhorts his readers to “be filled with the Spirit.” The similarity here with the negative command against alcohol may escape some: with alcohol, we give up control of our faculties to a mindless substance, and our corrupt flesh nature rises to the surface. If you’ve ever had too much to drink, you know what I mean. You say things when you’re tipsy that you wouldn’t say when you’re sober. Your ability to drive and walk is impaired. Being filled with the Spirit, however, implies that we are giving up control to “the mind of Christ” and to the God who created us for his purposes—our “new man” shines forth.

Understanding this truth is one key to getting a handle on the “worship wars” that many congregations have experienced in the past twenty years. Many in the older generations (“the builders” and to a certain extent, the “boomers”) fuss at the younger generation because of the latter’s desire to have more contemporary choruses and the additional accompaniment of guitars, drums, and so on. At the same time the younger generations (“busters,” “X,” and “2K”) complain about the slow tempo of some traditional hymns and the unpopularity (from their perspective) of the piano or church organ, or both. (One is hard pressed to find a successful radio station today that plays only piano and organ music!) When I moved back to Nebraska in 2010, I got reconnected with the congregation that sent me off to seminary. The sermon series that first Sunday I was back was “I Love the 80s.” Each week, the worship team performed a different (secular) hit song from the 80s, and the pastor used Scripture to highlight the significant themes of the song.

The one who is critical of the worship style a congregation uses is equally as guilty as the one who condemns another for not jumping on board a congregation’s preferred worship style, or a congregation’s desire to establish a more culturally relevant style. Neither group is filled with the Spirit. Neither group is more holy or righteous than the other is simply because of what its preferred style of music is. If we are filled with the Spirit when we come to worship, we allow the Holy Spirit to break down our inhibitions about style, while he directs our attention to the substance of the hymn or chorus.

Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs

When we get beyond our personal preferences about style, only then can we truly appreciate the command to “sing a new song” to our Lord. Paul goes on in Eph 5:19–20 to explain what he means by being filled with the Spirit. The first aspect is “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making music in your hearts to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything.” Paul here seems to bring the old (psalms, hymns) and the new (spiritual songs) together for the mutual edification of the body, and for the purpose of expressing thanks to our God. In fact, the five verbs that come after “be filled with the Spirit” are all subordinate to that command in some way, because they are all participles. Here is my outline for the organization of those verses:

Be filled (πληρόω) with the Spirit

Speaking (λαλέω) to one another with psalms (ψαλμός), hymns (ὕμνος), and spiritual songs (ᾠδή)

Singing (ᾄδω) and

Making music (ψάλλω) in your hearts to the Lord,

Always giving thanks (εὐχαριστέω) to God the Father…

Submitting (ὑποτάσσω) to one another out of reverence for Christ.

The passion in that exhortation is self-evident. The musical expression of God’s Word was a vital part of the fellowship experience of first century Christians. This has been true throughout the centuries in the Christian faith, and still holds true today. Passionate worship is one of the signs of a living, growing, fruit-bearing congregation. Passionate worship shows the world that we really do love our Lord with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind.

The second aspect of being filled with the Spirit is that we “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21). Like the Fifth Commandment (Ex 20:12), this command serves as general statement of transition between our spiritual relationships (worship of God within the body) and our earthly relationships (family and work). In the context of the former (worship), submitting to one another implies that we show mutual respect for each other’s preferred styles. If the Spirit is present, style is at best a secondary concern. What matters is keeping the unity of the Spirit with the bond of peace (Eph 4:3).

The New Song

The most common hymnbook in the pews of the churches I served in the past twenty years was Favorite Hymns of Praise (Tabernacle Publishing, Wheaton, IL) copyrighted in 1967. One day while preparing a sermon on the topic of the “new song,” I thumbed through the hymns and browsed an Internet site with hymn histories. I discovered that most of the hymns were in the public domain or the copyright had expired. In other words, they were written before copyright laws went into effect in the early 1920s. Although many of these hymns contain important, timeless truths about God and our faith, they are nonetheless “old.” The fact that they are old does not detract from their value, but it may detract from their appeal to younger generations.

The command to “sing to the Lord a new song” (Psalm 98:1) is not one which was negated by the New Covenant. All nine occurrences of the phrase “new song” in the NIV are connected with the victory, salvation, and justice of God.

God is still winning victories today, every time someone professes faith in him and receives baptism by immersion. In Luke 15, we see that the angels throw a heavenly party over each sinner who repents. Each soul has a unique story of how he or she came to know Christ, and each story is worthy of a “new song.”

Psalm 98

Psalm 98 is by far the most vivid statement of the “new song” in Scripture. The psalm consists of three stanzas of three verses each. In each of the first three verses, God’s salvation is mentioned. Verses 2–3 are particularly prophetic: the word for “salvation” (יְשׁוּעָה) is related to the word translated elsewhere as “Joshua,” or to the Greeks, “Jesus.”

Verses 4–6 make it clear that enthusiasm and passion are important, if not necessary, elements of worship. This second stanza begins and ends with the command to “shout for joy” (רוע). Verse 4 in the NIV is rendered “burst into jubilant song with music,” but the KJV reveals that the phrase is actually made up of only three verbs. “Burst” (KJV has “make a loud noise”; פצח) has the image of flood waters built up behind a dam or levee that suddenly break through clearing out everything in its path. “Jubilant song” (KJV has “rejoice”; רנן) is used of the mountains in vs. 8. “Music” (KJV has “sing praise”; זמר) is actually the root word for “psalm” (see the Ephesians passage above), which is a song sung to musical accompaniment.

God as Audience

Verse 6 is the crux of the entire psalm. The word “before” can also be translated “in the presence of.” When we “shout for joy in the presence of the Lord, the King,” the obvious conclusion here is that God is the audience. Those of us who worship, then, are the performers. The condition in Psalm 33:3 makes a great deal of sense, then: “play skillfully.” God wants us to give our best. Our best may not win us any recording contracts, but he does want us to worship with all that we are.

God wants us to praise him even when we do not feel like praising him, or even when we do not think our talents are good enough to contribute to the body. Jehoshaphat placed the choir out in front of the troops, and ultimately they did not have to lift a finger in violence against their enemies. God won the victory. Praise has a power that goes far beyond our ability and our comprehension. The point is: “SING!”

The final three stanzas reveal that worship is for all of God’s creation, not just his chosen people. In part, it is evangelistic. 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that orderly, comprehensible worship is a powerful tool for reaching the unsaved. If our forms of worship are foreign to the culture around us, we will not have a significant impact on our culture.

A Bold Example

One congregation I served in had a “talent” night. Two high school freshmen boys “rapped” Will Smith’s song “Just the Two of Us.” The “rap” is about Will Smith’s desire to be a good father to his son, in spite of his divorce from the boy’s mother. Nothing in the song is offensive to the Christian values of parenthood. I know some of our elderly members were squirming, if not fuming, from allowing that song to be performed in the sanctuary. But neither of these two young men has significant contact with their biological fathers. I interpreted that song as a heartfelt prayer of those two young men for a relationship like the one Will Smith sang about.

Conclusion

In worship, we long to draw near to our heavenly Father, just as those two teenagers longed to have a close relationship with their earthly fathers. Singing a new song to the Lord is one way to praise God for his victories in our lives, both past and future. If we are not singing new songs to the Lord, the rocks themselves will cry out declaring the righteous rule of our Savior and Lord.

Peace!

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

NOTE: On 1/16/26, I posted a link to the archived copy of the Christian Standard issue in which this article appears, not realizing I already a version of it posted here.

Christian Standard | February 4, 2001 by Christian Standard Media – Issuu Pages 10–12

Comments (2)

March 23, 2012

Helmet of Salvation (Isaiah 59:17, Ephesians 6:17)

Filed under: 1 Thessalonians,Biblical Studies,Courage,Ecclesiology,Ephesians,Faith, Faithfulness,Isaiah,Old Testament,Soteriology,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 7:37 am
Tags: 000000, 1 Thessalonians 5:8, Armor of God, Ephesians 6:17, Helmet of Salvation, Isaiah 59:17, Panoply, Spiritual Warfare

Check out this exclusive Logos Affiliate Deal from SMGB! Logos 10 Package Deal

When my kids were learning how to ride their bicycles, I was a bit obsessive about them using a helmet. Now when I was a kid (many moons ago, now), neither my parents nor I ever gave a second thought to riding my bike without a helmet. Helmets were for football, not bike riding. Granted, the helmet cannot save you from any and all injuries, which is one of the common arguments used by motorcycle riders opposed to mandatory helmet laws. But it is a measure of protection that gave me an added sense of security as a parent as my kids were learning how to be more independent. Now that my son has his driver’s license and my daughter is only weeks away from getting her learner’s permit, I’m obsessing about safety all over again. I’m not making everyone wear helmets when he drives, obviously. But Solomon was right. “There is nothing new under the sun.”

In three passages of Scripture, God uses the “helmet” (Heb. כֹּובַע) image to describe the salvation he freely offers (Isaiah 59:17; Ephesians 6:17; and 1 Thessalonians 5:8). In Isaiah 59:17, the prophet says that God “put[s] on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on His head.” In the context of Isaiah 59, God is “displeased that there [is] no justice” (vs. 15b). God’s salvation and righteousness are necessary to turn the tide of injustice in Israel. This word for helmet is only used six times in the Old Testament, but the Isaiah passage is the only time where God is said to wear this piece of armor. If God is all powerful, he doesn’t need armor, so obviously this is figurative language here. But this also betrays another myth we have about spiritual armor. We think it is defensive. But in this passage, God is not on the defense. He is moving forward in an offensive against injustice. He’s getting ready to execute his vengeance!

As I have mentioned before in other contexts, God’s salvation here goes far beyond our own personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Yes, each of us individually can personally receive God’s salvation, but not solely for our own benefit. God’s salvation here has national (and international) implications. God wants the nation of Israel to be saved, as well as the individuals within the nation.

The apostle Paul has this multifaceted view of salvation-justice as well. In 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul urges everyone to pray for “kings and authorities” so we may lead “peaceful lives,” because God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Isaiah’s image of the helmet fits well here. God wants you and I to serve as ambassadors who will proclaim his salvation not only to individuals, but his justice to our leaders as well (see also Eph 3:8–11, Romans 13:1–7). We do this by our behavior as well as by the words we speak. As Christians, we are not primarily on defense. We should be advancing in the power of the gospel, taking every thought captive (2 Corinthians 10:3–6) and storming the gates of hell (Matthew 16:18).

For too long the more conservative, non-mainline denominations have put justice on the back burner, usually treating symptoms (soup kitchens, used clothing stores, etc.) while not addressing the causes (economic oppression, government policies, waste, etc.). Fortunately, more and more Christians are beginning to recognize that a witness of social justice is an important part of declaring God’s salvation to the lost, hopeless, and oppressed. And interestingly enough, the more it seems we concern ourselves with social justice, the more intense the persecution becomes against Christians. I’d say that means we must be doing something right to concern ourselves with God’s salvation-justice.

The bicycle helmet cannot protect us from skinned knees and elbows. We need kneepads, elbow pads and wrist braces if we are really serious about protecting ourselves as we ride the highways and byways of this nation. God’s helmet of salvation is only part of the “whole armor of God” that defends us against the onslaught of Satan and his forces. Not only is it defensive, but His armor terrifies our foes and causes them to retreat as they see us advancing against them in God’s might.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

A qr code on a white background linking to an exclusive deal from Logos Bible Software.

Scan QR code above to exclusive Logos Affiliate deal from SMGB!

Comments (7)

January 13, 2012

Who Is, Who Was, and Who Is Coming (Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 16:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11)

Filed under: 1 Thessalonians,2 Peter,Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Eschatology,Greek,New Testament,Revelation — Scott Stocking @ 7:41 pm

I’m feeling kind of rusty. It’s been over three weeks since I’ve posted anything, but then, in those three weeks, I had my kids for the holidays, the holidays themselves, three repairs on the car, two round trips to Illinois, my dad and step mom both in the hospital at different times, and a partridge in a pear tree. Life has been pretty hectic. Things are getting back to normal, though, and after getting reacquainted with my Civilization IV game, I’m ready to get back in the blogosphere.

For those of you who aren’t on my Facebook friends’ list, I did in fact accomplish my 2011 resolution: I read through the entire Greek New Testament. I realized I haven’t written anything about Revelation yet, so I think I’ll take the next few posts to do that. In the meantime, I’ve started reading through the Greek NT again, so I will continue to post on other topics as well in the coming year.

There’s No Future Like the Present

One of the things that struck me almost right off the bat in Revelation was the Greek version of the phrase “Who is, who was, and who is to come” (NIV; ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος). At first glance in the English translation, this looks like a present tense verb (“Who is”), a past tense verb (“Who was”; 4:8 switches the order of the first two), and a future tense verb (“Who is to come”). But ὁ ἐρχόμενος is not future tense! It is actually a present tense participle, so it should imply the continuous aspect, that is, the action is currently underway. While “who is to come” does signal Jesus is coming, it doesn’t reflect the emphasis of the present tense in Greek. A better translation might be “Who is already coming.” Yes, he’s on his way, and he’ll be here soon.

But this isn’t the only place the NIV and many other versions imply a future tense that isn’t there in the Greek. We find the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 5:2, where Paul says, “You know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” The verb there is ἔρχεται., present tense. So the early church didn’t look at as Jesus’s second coming as something in the distant future. They thought of it as something under way even as they wrote and read the New Testament.

When Is He Coming?

Now I can hear the anticipation out there: What is Scott’s millennial view? Well, I won’t beat around the bush. I lean toward being a post-tribulation amillennialist. (I hope WordPress’s server is ready for the barrage of comments I’ll receive on that little revelation!) When Jesus died and rose again, he established his kingdom, the body of Christ, on earth through the preaching of Peter and subsequent missionary activity of his disciples and other followers. The church represents the “millennial” (I take the term to be figurative for “a long time”) reign of Christ. I also believe we are in the time when Satan has been let loose to deceive the nations and the elect, so I think we’re beyond the millennial period now and waiting for the final consummation of history in Jesus’s triumphant return.

I can hear some of you shouting at your computers and iPhones: “But what about the rapture? Isn’t that supposed to happen before Satan is let loose?” First of all, let me say that the word “rapture” (or any Greek equivalent) is never found in the New Testament. The events described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 are commonly referred to as the “rapture.” But these events I think could more appropriately be called a resurrection. After all, the dead bodies are raised first in that passage. Those of us who are alive will be “snatched up” (ἁρπάζω) as a resurrection from our mortal flesh. This is the same word John uses to describe what happens to the child born of the woman in Revelation 12:5. It’s also the word used in Matthew 12:29 (NIV): “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.”

This makes a nice segue to when I think Jesus’s second coming will happen. The watershed verse in my mind that tells me when Jesus is returning is Revelation 16:15: “Look, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to walk around naked and have others see his shame.” First of all, we have another present tense form of the word for “come,” so that aspect is reemphasized. Second, and more convincing in my mind, is the language of coming like a thief. I think this ties directly in with passages like Matthew 24:43, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10, and Revelation 3:3. No less than four different New Testament authors (Matthew, Paul, Peter, John) use this imagery of Christ’s return. But also notice when Jesus says he is coming: just before the final bowl of wrath is poured out. Since Paul connects the “coming” with the “snatching” in 1 Thessalonians 4–5, I have to believe that the body of Christ will remain on the earth during the entire tribulation of scrolls, trumpets, and bowls.

If You’ve Got Ears, Listen Up!

Don’t think you’re going to avoid the tribulation just because you’re a Christ follower. I don’t think God has ever let believers off that easily. Noah had to endure a flood; Abraham nearly sacrificed his own son; Moses spent 80 years in the wilderness; David spent years running from Saul. We Christ followers are going to experience (and may already be experiencing) the tribulation. Otherwise, why would Paul and Peter put such emphasis on being found holy, spotless, and blameless (Ephesians 1:4; 2 Peter 3:11–14)? Why the emphasis on “being ready” if we’re not going to live through it (or die in it!)?

Conclusion

Christ is on his way. We don’t know when: no one does. It may be 2012; it may not be until 2512. But we know he is true to his word, patient with the lost, and that he will come at the appointed time to win the final battle over sin and evil. Eternity with him will be glorious to say the least. I’m looking forward to it. I hope you are too.

Peace

Scott Stocking

Comments (3)

November 3, 2011

Qualifications of Male and Female Leaders in the Church (1 Timothy)

NOTE: If you like this article, you may also like The Temple of Artemis of the Ephesians as Background for Understanding 1 Timothy 2.

I would have to venture a guess that 1 Timothy 3 is a close second to Ephesians as a section of Scripture to which I have devoted a significant amount of scholarly research through the years. In 1995, I presented my first professional paper at the Fellowship of Professors (now the Stone-Campbell Journal Conference) at St. Louis Christian College on 1 Timothy 3 and 5 and the leadership roles and qualifications Paul assigns to women in those passages. After reading through 1 Timothy 2 and 3 this weekend, I can see that, although my original paper was respectable, I have learned a great deal more about Greek structure, syntax, and semantics in the last 16 years that would greatly enhance my initial offering.

The appendix table at the end of this post catalogs significant word usage in 1 Timothy primarily, but also in the pastoral epistles generally, especially where gender and leadership roles not only are discussed but intersect. A quick glance at the table demonstrates first and foremost the overlapping language applied to men and women, whether the regular saint or the recognized leader. At the very least, being a faithful Christian undoubtedly made one notable as leadership material.

Women in Leadership?

I’ve spent considerable time putting that table together, so let me cut to the chase here, since my main purpose is talking about women in leadership in the body of Christ. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul is addressing the leadership core Timothy was responsible for training. The passage mentions the “elder” (ἐπίσκοπος episkopos \eh PEE skaw pawss\, lit. “overseer” [one who holds the title]; note that the word is singular in this passage) and “deacons” or “ministers” (διάκονος diakonos \dee AH kaw nawss\ also “servant”), but it also mentions “women.” If you look at any Bible with footnotes, you will see there is some significant difference in how the translations understand the reference to “women” in 3:11. I have arranged the following verses (all from Logos versions of the respective Bibles) in the order I consider to be the most literal translation to the freest translation, highlighting the English word translated from γυνή (gynē \goo NAY\, “woman, wife”) and the respective versions’ footnotes under each verse:

‎‎‎‎AV Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

‎‎ESV Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.

Wives likewise must or Women likewise must [i.e. no “Their”]

‎‎NASB95 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

i.e. either deacons’ wives or deaconesses

NIV84 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

deaconesses

‎‎NIV In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

possibly deacons’ wives or women who are deacons

‎‎‎‎NLT In the same way, their wives must be respected and must not slander others. They must exercise self-control and be faithful in everything they do.

or the women deacons; the Greek word can be translated women or wives

Message No exceptions are to be made for women—same qualifications: serious, dependable, not sharp-tongued, not overfond of wine.

You can see right away where the issue lies with this passage: Are the “women” the wives of the leaders mentioned (if “wives” is intended, then “deacons’ wives” is more likely, given that “overseer” is singular in this passage) or any women in the church? In 1 Timothy 2:9–12, Paul seems to address “women” generally, not “wives” specifically. Is there any reason to think he would switch up in this passage? The difference in translations is obvious, but none of the translations are wrong per se in translating the word either “women” or “wives.” What concerns me as a scholar about the translation is the “gloss” (a word added presumably for clarification) of the plural possessive pronoun “their” in some of the versions. (You will notice that I italicized it in the verses, a common practice in more literal translations to indicate the word is not directly translated from a Greek word in the text.) Granted, this is a plausible translation, but not a necessary one. It is also highly interpretive. I’m not saying the Bible translation committees necessarily had agendas or were wrong to add the gloss, but it is something that the savvy Bible student should consider when studying this passage.

A Structure Word

Another word that reveals the structure of the passage is ὡσαύτως (hōsautōs \hoh SOW tohss\ “likewise”). The word is found 17 times in the NT, including four times in 1 Timothy, and implies not only a similarity of action, but a similarity of the subjects of those actions being compared. What is interesting is this word is found three verses earlier, in 1 Timothy 3:8: “Deacons likewise…” The question is, “Like what?” or “Like whom?” The obvious answer is like the elder in vs. 2. This point is even more obvious when one considers that there is no main verb in vv. 8 or 11: the verb is actually borrowed from vs. 2: “It is necessary for the elder [and deacons and women] to be….” The passage has a parallel structure signifying three leadership categories: elder, deacons, and women.

So what does that mean for the role of women specifically? I think it is important at this point to bring in a couple more passages of Scripture so we can have a broader view of the role of women in early church leadership. Titus 1–2 gives further instructions on elders (both the ἐπίσκοπος and the πρεσβῦτ- kind). The role of the “older women” (πρεσβῦτις presbytis \press BOO tihss\) was to teach the younger women to be more Christ-like. I think that is a perfect example of an appropriate role for female leaders in the church: teaching younger women. In 1 Timothy 5, Paul uses similar language to 1 Timothy 3 in describing the widows, especially those who are older, will probably not remarry, and have significant time to devote to serving the Lord and his people (see also 1 Corinthians 7:8, 34b). It would not surprise me to find that Paul’s reference to women leaders in 1 Timothy 3:11 included widows, especially since the larger context of the epistle supports that idea.

Backtracking

Now that I’ve put out there what is sure to be controversial among my more conservative readers, I want to backtrack a bit and talk about the first part of 1 Timothy 3. I mentioned above that the word for “elder” in v. 2 is singular. The passage actually uses a feminine form of the word for elder, which implies the office or the abstract concept of eldership, not necessarily the gender of the person holding the office. The question to ask is, “Why is this term singular when ‘deacons’ (v. 8) and ‘women’ (v. 11) are plural? Don’t most churches have more than one elder?”

A more literal rendering of ἐπίσκοπος may shed some light on the subject. The word is a compound of ἐπί (“over”) and σκοπός (“see, watch” e.g. “scope”), so some literally translate the word “overseer” (see for example 1 Peter 2:25, where Peter describes Jesus as “the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls”), and it eventually made its way into English as “bishop” (Gk episkopos > Latin episcopus > Old English bisceop [Merriam-Webster]), which is how some older English versions render the word. I have run in some circles where the concept of a lead pastor is frowned upon by leadership. One man should not have such authority over a congregation, so they say. But I think we find support for that concept in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1–2. Certainly any pastor should have the qualifications of an elder, and I would argue that the pastor should be considered a member of the eldership in whatever church he (or she!) serves. The job of an “overseer” (for I equate “overseer” with “senior” or “lead pastor”) is not to run the whole show alone, but to equip others for works of service to build up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11–13). I am quite comfortable with the concept of a senior pastor when the duties and responsibilities of such are rightly understood and when such a person lives up to those responsibilities.

As a side note, when the words for elder are used in the plural (Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1 for ἐπίσκοπος), I believe they refer to the group of those who lead individual house churches. Titus was instructed to appoint πρεσβυτέρους (plural form, 1:5), but then Paul immediately writes about the ἐπίσκοπος (singular, 1:7).

Conclusion

I think it is important that we have a proper understanding of Scripture, otherwise I wouldn’t write this blog. But it is equally important that we not force one view upon another. As I discussed in the 1 Corinthians post on tongues, love must come first in any doctrinal discussion. Teaching without love and compassion is little more than indoctrination. As a pastor, I wouldn’t impose the concept of women in leadership on a congregation that wasn’t ready for it, but I wouldn’t hesitate to teach the concept whenever the opportunity arose. And I would always make sure the leadership in any church I served understood what I believe about the subject without insisting that they all jump on board. I am presenting the evidence here: it’s up to others whether they choose to be convinced by my reasoning and studies.

If you have stories about how your congregation has handled the role of women in leadership, I would love for you to share them in the comments. Thank you for reading!

Peace,

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

Appendix: Word Usage by Gender and Office in the Pastoral Epistles

Word	Transliteration/ Pronunciation	Meaning	Men^a	Women^b	Elders^c	Deacons^d	Others
ἡσύχιος	*hēsychios* \hay SOO khee awss\	adjective: quiet	1 Ti 2:2	1 Ti 2:2; 1 Pe 3:4*
ἡσυχία,	*hēsychia* \–KHEE ah\	quietness	1 Ti 2:12(?); 2 Th 3:12^e	1 Ti 2:11–12; 2 Th 3:12
εὐσέβεια^f	*eusebeia* \you SEH bay ah\	godliness	1 Ti 2:2, 3:16, 4:7–8^g; 6:11^c Ti 2:12 (εὐσεβῶς)	1 Ti 2:2, 3:16; Ti 2:12 (εὐσεβῶς)		4:7–8; 6:11^c	1 Ti 5:4 (εὐσεβέω to widows);
θεοσέβεια	*theosebeia* \theh aw–\	godliness		1 Ti 2:10*
σεμνότης	*semnotēs* \sem NAW tayss\	dignity	1Ti 2:2, 3:4; Ti 2:7		1 Ti 3:4; Ti 2:2
σεμνός	*semnos* \–NAWSS\	dignified	1 Ti 3:8; Ti 2:2	1 Ti 3:11		1 Ti 3:8
κόσμιος*	*kosmios* \KAWSS mee awss\	respectable; appropriate	1 Ti 3:2	1 Ti 2:9	1 Ti 3:2
κοσμέω	*kosmeō* \–MEH oh\	I adorn		1 Ti 2:9, 1 Pe 3:5			Ti 2:10 (slaves)
πρέπει	*prepei* \PREH pay\	verb: it is proper for		1 Ti 2:10			Ti 2:1 (sound doctrine)
ὑποταγή	*hypotagē* \hoo paw tah GAY\	submission		1 Ti 2:11			1 Ti 3:4 (children)
ὑποτάσσω	hypotassō \–TAHSS soh\	I submit to		1 Co 14:34
ἐπιτρέπω	*epitrepō* \eh pee TREH poh\	I permit		1 Co 14:34
αὐθεντέω*	*authenteō* \ow then TEH oh\	I usurp authority		1 Ti 2:12
σωφροσύνη*	*sōphrosynē* \soh fraw SOO nay\	sound judgment; moderation		1 Ti 2:9, 15
σωφρόνως*	*sōphronōs* \–FRAW nohss\	moderately	Ti 2:12	Ti 2:12
σωφρονισμός*	*sōphronismos* \–nee SMOSS\	sound judgment; moderation	2 Ti 1:7^h	2 Ti 1:7^h
σώφρων*	*sōphrōn* \–frohn\	adjective: moderate	Ti 2:2	Ti 2:5 (younger)	1 Ti 3:2; Ti 1:8, 2:2
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα	*mias gynaikos andra*	“one-woman man”	1 Ti 3:2, 12 (plural); Ti 1:6
ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή	*henos andros gynē*	“one-man woman”		1 Ti 5:9			1 Ti 5:9 (widows)
νηφάλιος*	*nēphalios* \nay FAH lee awss\	temperate	1 Ti 3:2; Ti 2:2	1 Ti 3:11	1 Ti 3:2; Ti 2:2
προί̈στημι	*proistēmi* \praw EESS tay mee\	I manage	1 Th 5:12; 1 Ti 3:4–5, 12; Ti 3:8, 14	1 Th 5:12; Ti 3:8, 14	1 Ti 3:4–5; 5:17	1 Ti 3:12	1 Ti 5:14 (οἰκοδεσποτέω young widows manage home)
πάροινος*	*paroinos* \PAH roy nawss\	addicted to wine	1 Ti 3:3; Ti 1:7
μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας	*mē oinō pollō prosechontas*	not given to much wine	1 Ti 3:8			1 Ti 3:8
διάβολος	*diabolos* \dee AH baw lawss\	devil; slanderer	1 Ti 3:6–7	1 Ti 3:11; Ti 2:3	1 Ti 3:6–7
ὡσαύτως	*hōsautōs* \hoh SOW tohss\	adverb: likewise		1 Ti 2:9, 3:11		1 Ti 3:8	1 Ti 5:24 (bad & good deeds)
ἀνεπίλημπτος	*anepilēmptos* \ah neh PEE laym ptawss\	blameless	1 Ti 3:2	1 Ti 5:7	1 Ti 3:2		1 Ti 5:7 (widows)

* Indicates that all occurrences of the word in the New Testament are listed here.

^a Translated from ἀνήρ (anēr \ah NAYR\, “man, husband”; 1 Ti 2:8, 12; 3:2, 12; 5:9; Ti 1:6; 2:5); πρεσβύτης (presbytēs \press BOO tayss\, “old man, elder [holds title]”; Ti 2:2; and πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros \press BOO teh ross\, comparative adjective “older man, elder [holds title]”; 1 Ti 5:1–2, 17, 19; Ti 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1, 5). The generic word for “human” (ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos \AHN throw pawss\) is presumed to refer to both men and women unless context suggests otherwise.

^b Translated from γυνή (gynē \goo NAY\, “woman, wife”; 1 Ti 2:9–12, 14; 3:2, 11–12; 5:9; Ti 1:6); πρεσβῦτις (presbytis \press BOO tihss\ “old woman, elder [holds title(??)]”; Ti 2:3).

^c Translated from ἐπισκοπή (episkopē \eh pihss kaw PAY\, “office/function of elder”; 1 Ti 3:1); ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos \eh PIHSS kaw pawss\, “elder” [one who holds the title]; 1 Ti 3:2; Ti 1:7); πρεσβύτης; πρεσβῦτις; and (συμ*)πρεσβύτερος ([sym]presbyteros \[soom] press BOO teh ross\ comparative adjective “older man, [fellow] elder [holds title]”; 1 Ti 5:1–2, 17, 19; Ti 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1*, 5); πρεσβυτέριον (presbyterion press boo TEH ree awn\ noun “council of elders [holds title]”; 1 Ti 4:14).

^d Transliterated from διάκονος (diakonos \dee AH kaw nawss\ “servant, deacon”; 1 Ti 3:8, 12; 4:6).

^e Part of a command to the disruptive busybodies identified in 2 Th 3:11.

^f Generic references or descriptions in 4:8 (1x); 6:3–6 (3x).

^g Verb is second person singular, so presumably referring to Timothy only.

^h A generalized statement in the midst of specific instructions to Timothy himself.

NOTE: Minor formatting issues were fixed on 11/4, along with clearing up a dangling modifier in the first paragraph. Other minor edits made 1/26/22.

Comments (9)

October 12, 2011

Spiritual Warfare in Ephesians

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Ephesians,Eschatology,Greek,Hope,New Testament,Prayer,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 7:11 pm
Tags: Authorities, Heavenly Realms, Love and the Powers, Powers and Principalities, Prayer and the Powers, Violence and the Powers, Walter Wink

Paul’s letter to the Ephesian believers is a goldmine of theological truth and practical living. Paul writes about our standing in Christ in the first three chapters, and then makes an obvious switch in tone in the final three chapters to speak about how we should live in Christ (there are 40+ imperative verbs in the last three chapters of Ephesians, as opposed to 1 imperative verb in the first three chapters). As I will show in this post, this letter has a very nice overall chiastic structure, numerous patterns of three, and definite subtheme of spiritual warfare. Ephesians is so eminently practical that I used to joke I couldn’t preach a sermon without referencing Ephesians at some point. I have had the NIV text of Ephesians memorized for almost 20 years now, but with the release of the new NIV this year, I guess I’ll have to upgrade my memory!

The Overall Structure of Ephesians

Many scholars and study Bibles have presented various outlines of Ephesians. Watchman Nee, a prominent Brethren preacher in China in the mid 20^thcentury, wrote an excellent treatise on Ephesians called Sit, Walk, Stand. His rough outline is that we have to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn who we are in Christ before we can walk in faith and stand against the powers of darkness. The irony of walking before standing does not escape his treatise either. Several years ago, I discerned the following outline, and this has been my schema for approaching Ephesians.

I. 1:1–14 Introduction and Blessing

II. 1:15–18a Opening Prayer for Enlightenment

A. 1:18b The Hope to which he has called you

B. 1:18c The Riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints

C. 1:19a His incomparably great Power

III. 1:19b-6:24 The Enlightenment Offered

C. 1:19b–2:10 The Resurrection

B. 2:11–3:21 Coheirs with Israel (2:12, 19; 3:6)

A. 4:1–6:24 Hopeful Living

1. 4:1–16 Life empowered by God’s blessing and grace

2. 4:17–5:21 Life among the pagans

3. 5:22–6:9 Life in your own household

4. 6:10–20 “Life” in the heavenly realms

IV. 6:21–24 Conclusion

Power, Riches, and Hope.

What more could a Christ-follower ask out of one epistle? Power, riches, and hope. But the power of the resurrection actually pervades the epistle in Paul’s characterization of the Christ-follower’s life “in the heavenly realms.” Paul uses that phrase (ἐν τοῖς
ἐπουράνιοις en tois epouraniois, \en toyss eh-pooh-RAH-nee-oyss\) five times in Ephesians (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; and 6:12). In the opening verses, Paul assures the believers that they, corporately, have the fullness of God’s spiritual blessing for carrying out his will “on earth as it is in heaven.” We know from the next two verses (1:20; 2:6) that the heavenly realms are where we are “seated together” with Christ. Up through chapter 2, then, it appears that “the heavenly realms” is just another expression for heaven itself; but as we will see in chapters 3 and 6, the concept is much broader.

In chapter 3, there are those in the heavenly realms, identified as rulers (ἀρχή archē, \ar KHAY\; you have to clear your throat a bit to say the KH) and authorities (ἐξουσία exousia, \eks ooh SEE ah\), to whom the “church” (ἐκκλησία ekklēsia, \ek klay SEE ah\, God’s “congregation” on earth) is responsible to reveal the mystery of the gospel. This statement makes it rather obvious that the phrase ἐν τοῖς ἐπουράνιοις does not refer to “heaven” (οὐρανός ouranos, \ooh rah NAWSS\) proper, the eternal dwelling place of God’s holy ones. We know everyone in heaven knows about the gospel, but who are those “in the heavenly realms” that need to know about it? Chapter 6 broadens the scope even more: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” So the heavenly realms encompass the entire spectrum from good to evil. But again, who are the inhabitants?

Walter Wink and Language of Power in the New Testament

For the answer to that question, I turn to the man who is probably the world’s leading scholar on the language of power in the New Testament, Walter Wink. If you’re not a pacifist, you might have a little trouble swallowing some of his liberal theology, but if you read his works, keep an open mind, because I believe he has profound insight into the concept of spiritual warfare. (I’m becoming more of a pacifist myself as I get older, but I’m not necessarily opposed to all wars.) His Powers trilogy (Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers, Engaging the Powers) is nicely condensed into a very readable volume entitled The Powers That Be (from which I will derive most of the material I present here). To put it simply, the powers and authorities of which the Bible speaks are entities created by God as stewards of various institutions in life (material or abstract), but they are also influenced by the people who inhabit those institutions. The powers are in the same boat as we humans, but on a much larger stage. They are, according to Wink (p. 31):

Created good;
Fallen; and
In need of redemption.

I cannot go into the details of Wink’s description of the powers, but in a nutshell they are the spiritual entities that, in a pure state, watch over human institutions for the common good they were designed to fulfill. Families are one example of an institution. Your own immediate family may have one power (akin to a guardian angel in my own thinking, but I’m not sure Wink would agree), but your extended family has another power that “governs” (or perhaps is governed by) the individual family powers. Do you behave differently at home than you do around your grown brothers and sisters? That may be the powers at work.

Businesses and corporations are also institutions influencing and influenced by powers. If you read the mission statements or core values of most corporations, you will see that they ideally exist to further the common good. However, when corrupt individuals begin to exercise wicked influence within a corporate setting, powers begin to take on the nature of the “corporate culture” and may even be or become the culture itself. If an individual bucks or rebels against the prevailing corporate culture, for good or evil, the corporate culture will generally disenfranchise the rebel. Just look at Enron, for example. Much of what happened there perpetuated itself after a while. Whistleblowers are not well liked when calling a corporation to accountability.

On the other hand, when a corporation does something right, it becomes a win-win situation. The Tylenol scare back in the 80s is a perfect example of this. Tylenol was forced to recall millions of dollars worth of product because of some isolated tampering incidents. Even though the incidents were local, Tylenol’s maker recognized the gravity of the safety issues involved and took the loss. Tylenol is still around today, 30 years later, along with its generic competitors. In doing the right thing, they not only set an example for the employees and their families that they care about integrity, but they also sent a powerful message resounding through the corporate world: “Do the right thing no matter the cost.”

Violence and the Powers

Violence also has a powerful influence on the powers, according to Wink. Violence can include anything from yelling and screaming to bribery to the use of deception and deadly force to obtain one’s ends. Violence breeds more violence and establishes a culture of violence. Wink distinguishes between the legitimate use of force to restrain evildoers and violence, which is the “morally illegitimate or excessive use of force” (p. 159). The ultimate goal, in Wink’s view, is nonviolent conflict resolution regardless of the nature or intensity of the conflict. By extension, you can say the same things about sexuality and pornography, gambling, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse. When any of those abuses of the created order become inappropriately prominent in an institutional culture, the culture becomes corrupt and in need of redemption.

Prayer, the Church, and the Powers

So what does all this have to do with you and me? I return to Ephesians 3:10 and 6:12. The body of Christ has the responsibility to work redemptively in the face of corrupt institutions and corrupt culture. Every time Christ-followers share the gospel with unbelievers, they speak not only to the unbelievers but to the powers and authorities that have influence on the unbeliever. Whenever Christ-followers speak out and act peaceably and redemptively against corporate and societal injustices, they send a powerful message to the powers and authorities behind those institutions. In some respects, it may be a numbers game: the more Christ-followers show they care about justice, peace, and redemption, the more influence that has on the powers.

But Wink takes the whole concept one step further by invoking prayer. Regardless of what you think about his general theology, I think Wink hits the nail on the head when it comes to prayer. A couple quotes from his chapter on “Prayer and the Powers” (p. 180ff) make the point: “Prayer is never a private inner act disconnected from day-to-day realities. It is, rather, the interior battlefield where the decisive victory is won before any engagement in the outer world is even possible….Unprotected by prayer, our social activism runs the danger of becoming self-justifying good works” (p. 181). A little later he writes, “The profound truth of this worldview is that everything visible has an invisible or heavenly dimension. Prayer in this worldview is a matter of reversing the flow of fated events from on high to earth, and initiating a new flow from earth to heaven that causes God’s will to be done ‘on earth as it is in heaven.’…What happens next happens because people pray” (pp. 182–3). So prayer combined with action is at the heart of spiritual warfare. Neither one is sufficient by itself, but of the two, I would argue that prayer is eminently more powerful in opening the doors of opportunity.

Some Examples, Positive and Negative

My brother (who will be back on American soil this week) spent the last year in Afghanistan with his construction unit building infrastructure for the Afghani army. That, in my mind, is a nonviolent means to support the legitimate defense of a sovereign nation. (I’m proud of him and his crew and what they accomplished, and the whole family is anxiously awaiting his return to Omaha.) I taught a course last year in Las Vegas and have a few former students who are working redemptively in the gambling industry. It’s not a concession to the gambling industry, but an opportunity to fight the good fight in the heavenly realms.

On the flip side, Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, has the wrong attitude about spiritual warfare. Whatever one may think about their sincerity, their protests against homosexuality and the military only serve to fuel the violence of the powers. The hate that spews forth from their actions and words comes nowhere close to bringing redemption to the powers in my opinion. In fact, one of the best ways to confront evil is to promote an attitude of love. This doesn’t mean tolerance of sin, but a respect for each person as uniquely human and worthy of respect as a special creation of God. As individual behaviors change, the powers respond. But individual behaviors change not from protests and words of condemnation, but from individual acts of love and service toward one another. If God’s kindness leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4), shouldn’t we expect our own kindness to do the same for those within our sphere of influence?

I myself have had experience on both sides. At one time in my ministry, I wrote passionately against homosexuality. But I also came to realize that if I didn’t get out and actually meet and interact with homosexuals, my words would fall on deaf ears, and I’d only be preaching to the choir. When I began to develop some social relationships with homosexuals, I began to see the impact I could have in making a positive presentation of Christianity. It wasn’t that every homosexual with whom I came in contact became a heterosexual, but some did begin to have a positive attitude toward Christianity where there had only been hatred and vitriol before.

The same can be said for a Christian response to abortion. We have a more powerful impact against abortion by supporting a woman through an unplanned pregnancy, helping her to bring the baby to term, than we ever will with all of our protests and (even worse) the vandalism and bombing of abortion clinics or the murder of abortion doctors.

This is why Paul is able to speak so highly of love in 1 Corinthians 13. Love is the ultimate tool (I refuse to call it a weapon) in the fight against sin, evil, and corruption, and at a minimum, it has to happen one person at a time. Love is superior to all other actions, and when we “live a life of love” (Ephesians 5:2), we speak to the redemption of the spiritual forces at work in the heavenly realms.

Conclusion

Spiritual warfare is a topic that has a lot of craziness around it, as well as a lot of well-intentioned but sadly misguided theology. I hope this post has enlightened you on the concept, and I pray that you will recognize the power that you have to speak and act redemptively as warriors in the battle in the heavenly realms. Put on the whole armor of God, and you will be ready to fight the good fight boldly and victoriously.

Peace!

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My views are my own.

Comments (5)

« Previous Page — Next Page »

December 21, 2022

Abortion

“Exposure”: The Precursor to Abortion

Modern History of Abortion and Genocide

Gender Confusion

Reassignment or Mutilation?

Drag Queens: Objectifying and Degrading Women

Balancing Survival and Compassion

October 3, 2022

August 7, 2022

November 9, 2021

July 26, 2012

Some Questions about Immersion

Putting God in Box

Objective Truth or Subjective Mystery?

To Transubstantiate or Not to Transubstantiate

Conclusion

April 22, 2012

Don’t Get Drunk on Wine. . .

Instead, Be Filled with the Spirit

Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs

The New Song

Psalm 98

God as Audience

A Bold Example

Conclusion

March 23, 2012

January 13, 2012

There’s No Future Like the Present

When Is He Coming?

If You’ve Got Ears, Listen Up!

Conclusion

November 3, 2011

Women in Leadership?

A Structure Word

Backtracking

Conclusion

October 12, 2011

The Overall Structure of Ephesians

Power, Riches, and Hope.

Walter Wink and Language of Power in the New Testament

Violence and the Powers

Prayer, the Church, and the Powers

Some Examples, Positive and Negative

Conclusion

Search for posts.

Latest Posts

Pages and Class Materials

Find posts in these categories.

Follow Blog via Email