Note: This is a guest post since presently I am overseas. This is by Scott Stocking. Scott is no stranger to some of you who read this blog. His blog…
Guest Post: Addressing Wells’ Contextual Gaffes on 1 Corinthians 6:9–11: Contradiction 434 Debunked
[If you like this article, please check out the curated lists at the top of my home page.]
Related Article: Qualifications of Male and Female Leaders in the Church (1 Timothy) | Sunday Morning Greek Blog
Who are the “women” Paul is writing about in 1 Timothy 2 & 3? This is an important question to ask and answer if someone is just going to look at the surface text and make unfounded claims about the Bible contradicting itself about the role of women in the faith, as Steve Wells does in The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. A basic understanding of the context and setting of this epistle will clear up many of the contradictions he alleges. Let’s dive in.
Paul wrote two letters to Timothy that survived to the time of the codification of the New Testament. If you follow Timothy’s ministry through the New Testament, you will find that Timothy was not only a close companion to Paul, but that he also seems to have been acting in the role of an apostle. Paul has seemingly appointed Timothy to succeed him after 2 years of successful ministry in Ephesus.
Ephesus was a major trade and port city in western Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) at the time and featured the Temple of Artemis (Greek; in the Roman pantheon, she was equated with Diana), a fertility goddess. The temple was considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. According to the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, the Greek goddess Artemis, at least according to the depictions discovered in Ephesus, “was portrayed as a more mature woman. Her robe is draped in such a way as to expose her bosom, which is covered with multiple breasts, depicting her gift of fertility and nurture.[1]” The ceremonies were conducted by eunuch priests and virgin priestesses.
Being a priestess in ancient Greece was one of the few things a woman could do to have power and influence. Otherwise, the women typically had few rights in Greece. These priestesses and the laypeople of Ephesus may have had a lot of knowledge about their goddess, but the tenure of a priestess of Artemis of Ephesus was typically short; they would typically transition from a virgin priestess to wife and mother while they were still young enough to bear children.[2] Although little to no evidence exists of any temple prostitution in Ephesus,[3] the rituals surrounding the worship of a fertility goddess and the attire and adornment of the priestesses may be part of what Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy 2. One must keep in mind, unlike Mr. Wells, that these epistles were written in a specific cultural context to a specific demographic group, so the specific statements may reflect cultural nuances without violating the underlying principles of Scripture.
One other thing to keep in mind here, at least from my perspective. The King James Version was a valuable translation in its day, but with the advent of more source materials and a better understanding of textual transmission principles over the centuries, not to mention the evolution of the English language in the 400+ years since it was first translated, these factors may cause some to misunderstand the nuances of certain terms, because they may not mean the same in 2023 as they did in the late 19th century, when the last update to the official KJV was published. With that in mind, then, let’s look at the text in 1 Timothy 2, specifically in regard to the passages on women.
| General Exhortations (2:1–7) | Directed Teachings to Leaders (2:8–15) |
| 1–2a: Paul urges prayer for all | 8a: Paul wants men to lift up holy hands in prayer and thanksgiving |
| 2b–3: peaceful and quiet (hēsychios) lives; good (beautiful) and pleasing to God | 8b–12: without anger or disputing; modesty, propriety, good (moral) deeds; learn in quietness (hēsychia) |
| 4–6: wants all people to be saved | 13–15: analogy: women “saved”/“kept safe” through childbearing |
| 7: Hinge verse describing Paul’s purpose | 3:1 Hinge verse to discussion of formal leadership positions |
In 1 Timothy 2:8–10, Paul is giving a parallel set of instructions for men and women generally, and he puts them on the same level by using the adverb ὡσαύτως (hōsautōs, “in the same way”). This adverb typically implies a similarity of position or status, both with the people that are modified in the comparison and the actions or sometimes the settings associated with those people thus compared. So in vs. 8, Paul “desires” or “wishes” that “men in every place” to pray without contention. The use of hōsautōs in vs. 9 compels us to take the indicative verb from vs. 8 (Βούλομαι, boulomai) as governing the predicate in vs. 9. (If there’s any question about this, the same thing happens in the very next chapter for three groups of leaders.) Paul “desires” or “wishes” the women to “adorn” (κοσμέω, kosmeō) themselves in “appropriate [κόσμιος, kosmios] clothing” (notice the similar semantic root for both words). The same adjective is used in 3:2 of the overseer, but is translated “good behavior.”
Another character trait Paul expects of the women in vs. 9 is the noun σωφροσύνη (sōphrosynē), which is translated “sobriety” in the KJV, but “propriety” in the NIV. The word can also mean “sound judgment,” “self-discipline,” or “self-control.” The adjectival form of that word, σώφρων (sōphrōn), is used of the overseer in 3:2. At this point, it’s safe to say Paul had similar expectations of men and women generally that he had of those identified as “overseers,” a seemingly formal leadership designation in the New Testament.[4] Of course, there are certain stereotypical behaviors (at least in Paul’s day) that were thought to be gender specific, so we shouldn’t expect Paul to have the exact same set of behavioral expectations for men and women.
Now that we’ve looked at the terminology, let’s apply this to the cultural situation in Ephesus, specifically with respect to the priestesses who served in the Temple of Artemis. The Ephesians, especially the women, would have most likely looked up to these priestesses as examples of holiness, so it’s reasonable that the women would have wanted to dress like them as well. One only need to search for images of “priestess of Artemis” to see that these priestesses wore braided hair, pearls, and gold jewelry. Paul didn’t want these Christian converts, some of whom may have been former priestesses or temple workers themselves, to appear like pagan religious leaders. In today’s world, Paul might encourage women not to dress like some of the “Real Housewives” or other Hollywood stars who aren’t afraid to flash their flesh and their wealth.
Wells considers verse 9 “misogyny and insults to women” according to the symbol he used, but as I’ve shown, nothing could be further from the truth here. Paul expresses similar standards for men and women, so he’s treating women as equals. This will be further demonstrated as we analyze the next two verses.
Paul follows up these general exhortations to men and women to a particular discussion on how to address the teaching of women in Ephesus. On the surface, the passage admittedly appears to have some misogynistic undertones, but a look into the background of the Greek text considering the cultural setting, we will again see quite the opposite. Let’s look at vv. 11–12, my translation:
A woman must learn in an orderly manner in all subjection; I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have inappropriate authority over a man, but to behave in an orderly manner.
First, Paul shifts from talking to “women” in the plural in vs. 9 to about “a woman” (anarthrous, i.e., without the definite article) in vs. 11. Is this just a stylistic difference? Perhaps. But I think what is more likely here is that Paul is referring to “a” or “any” woman who wants to learn about the Gospel of Christ, and perhaps even to be a leader in the church at some point in the future (see, for example, 1 Tim 3:11).
These women very likely could have included women who were transitioning out of the Artemisian priesthood into civilian life. They had knowledge of a goddess, but of course this goddess was nothing like Jesus Christ or his father, the one true God. I think a reasonable assumption here is that Paul didn’t want to run the risk of them introducing pagan beliefs into the pure Christian Gospel Timothy was appointed to teach and proclaim. It was about maintaining order and decorum in the educational setting, not turning it into an Athenian Mars Hill philosophers’ debate! It’s also highly likely that these women were being taught by widows or older women already established in the Christian faith, and not by men, so the “subjection” may not have been to men (cf. 1 Timothy 5:9–16; Titus 2:3–4).
You probably noticed in my translation that I didn’t use a form of the word “quiet” for ἡσυχία (hēsychia), but rather used the phrase “in an orderly manner.” (Both times it is a prepositional phrase and is not a command, as some translations make it at the end of vs. 12.) I think this translation better fits the context here.[5] The adjective form of this noun is used in vs. 2 to speak of Paul’s desire that everyone “live peaceful and quiet (or ordered) lives in all godliness and holiness.” Paul doesn’t want these women teaching right away or trying to take over in the educational setting, nor does he want them usurping the authority of the man who is overseeing the teaching. This is the only time in the NT this Greek word (αὐθεντέω authenteō) is used for authority, so it’s apparently the type of authority that Paul himself would never use or claim.
In the last part of chapter 2, Paul uses the Creation account to make his summary point on what he’s discussed in chapter 2. Verses 13 and 14 give a true account of what happened in Genesis 1–3, but Paul stops short of saying that Adam also ate of the fruit. I admit that this could be a bit of “she did it first” mentality, but Paul is generally not that petty. Why does he point out that Eve was deceived and not Adam? Perhaps the better question to ask is, “Why was Eve deceived when there was a direct command from God not to do what she did?” Is God responsible for Eve’s deception? I think not. In the Creation narrative, Adam received the command from God before Eve was created as his helper. So, is it possible that Adam failed to teach or warn Eve about the forbidden fruit? It’s hard to imagine he didn’t tell her everything. Even so, the point of the passage is that Eve was the one who violated the sacred order, so God’s mitigation was the restoration of that sacred order, that the male would be the head in the relationship. There’s nothing there to indicate the rule was authoritarian or absent of genuine love in any way. The woman only had to endure pain in childbirth. Man’s “rule” came at the expense of doing the hard labor to work the land and provide a living for them both and their descendants.
Adam had given up his place of authority God had established in the created order and followed the woman’s lead instead of God’s lead when it came to the forbidden fruit, and the results were disastrous for all of humanity. Is this the usurpation Paul is talking about in verse 12? It may very well be. Based on that, then, I would like to put forth that Paul’s argument here implies that part of the male’s redemptive task is to recapture the original design for him to be a teacher. This isn’t to say women can’t teach; it’s clear from other Scriptures they can. But again, this may be to counter some of the influence that the (former) priestesses may have had, at least until they could be established in their newfound Christian faith, so that order can be maintained.
The final verse about women being “saved through childbearing” would seem to take on whole new meaning when contrasted with the virgin priestesses of the Temple of Artemis of the Ephesians (see “Additional Note” below). For those women, their virginity was their form of holiness for however many years they served in the temple. It may have been difficult for some of them who were transitioning into married life to adapt to the idea that they could still be considered “holy” and “saved” when they started having children. Verse 15 was Paul’s way of saying that, even in their new lives, they were still important members of the body of Christ. They had traded in a certain degree of autonomy as a priestess for the domestic life of a wife and perhaps a lesser member of Greek society, but Paul’s statement in vs. 15 is intended to elevate them in the Christian society to a critical role in fulfilling the creation mandate to “be fruitful and multiply.”[6]
Additional note (added 3/31/23): I came across the following reference in Apollodorus 1.4 (English translation edited by Sir James George Frazer; Perseus Tufts edition) and an accompanying footnote: “But Latona for her intrigue with Zeus was hunted by Hera over the whole earth, till she came to Delos and brought forth first Artemis, by the help of whose midwifery she afterwards gave birth to Apollo.” The portion of the footnote that is of interest addresses the statement that Artemis was the midwife for the birth of her twin brother! The footnote states, “The quaint legend, recorded by Apollodorus, that immediately after her birth Artemis helped her younger twin brother Apollo to be born into the world, is mentioned also by Serv. Verg. A. 3.73 and the Vatican Mythographers. The legend, these writers inform us, was told to explain why the maiden goddess Artemis was invoked by women in child-bed.” Could it be that Paul’s statement about women being saved through childbirth was meant to ensure that Ephesian women in that culture who may have called on Artemis while giving birth after they converted to Christianity would not be guilty of blasphemy or some other sin?
Now, where was I? Oh, yes, I set out to address some of the alleged contradictions and misogynist statement in Steven Wells poorly researched The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, especially in the much-debated passage about men’s and women’s roles in 1 Tim 2:8–15. I don’t have space to deal with the petty contradictions where he’s comparing apples to oranges. He identifies three instances of misogyny in 2:9–15, all of which I have addressed above. The issue of modest dress was to contrast with the cult and culture of the priestesses in the pagan Temple of Artemis of Ephesus. The same adjective about propriety is used of both women and the overseer in 3:2. I’ve shown that the “in silence” was not necessarily muteness but has to do with maintaining a proper order in the church, and that it was used of both men and women. The prohibition on teaching is likely a cultural stopgap measure until the Ephesian women, some of whom may have been priestesses of Artemis at one time, are firmly grounded in their newfound Christian faith. The reference to Adam and Eve in chapter 3 is not intended to be a first-century version of keeping the women at home barefoot and pregnant, but a reminder that Adam and Eve both had consequences for violating God’s only commandment. Even though Eve sinned first, Adam got the more strenuous of the two punishments: his “rule” over his wife was accompanied by working the land by the sweat of his brow daily to provide for his family.
I do hope you’ve found this rather lengthy article helpful when it comes to 1 Timothy 2. If you like it, I would encourage you to check my earlier article on 1 Timothy 3 with respect to women in leadership, which I now have to review to see if any of these new thoughts require an update. As always, my thoughts are my own, except where I give credit to those whom I cite. Peace to all.
Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.
Reference (added 4/1/23): I just found an excellent series of articles looking at the influence of Artemis Ephesia in 1 Timothy 2. I’m glad I found it after I published my own article, because I consider that independent confirmation I’m on the right track. We have slightly different conclusions, and the author takes into account some Gnostic influences in the article, but overall, we have a very similar take on how to understand 1 Timothy 2 in a way that respects the equality of women in God’s kingdom. https://margmowczko.com/1-timothy-212-in-context-5/. It’s a five-part series, with this link being the final part, but it has links to the first four articles at the end.
[1] Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England, Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen, and Trent C. Butler, eds. 2003. “Artemis.” In Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 121. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.
[2] Claus, Patricia. Priestesses Among Few Women Who Had Status, Power in Ancient Greece. The Greek Reporter, December 5, 2022, accessed 03/29/23 https://greekreporter.com/2022/12/05/ancient-greece-women-priestesses
[3] BiblicalStudies.org.uk: Cult Prostitution In New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal by S. M. Baugh, accessed 03/26/23. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_ephesus_baugh.html
[4] This conclusion is further demonstrated by comparing the terms used to describe the three classes of leaders (overseer, deacons, and women) in 1 Timothy 3:1–11, and even with the terms describing the widows in 1 Timothy 5.
[5] In 2 Thess 3:12, for example, the noun is used in contrast with those who would be “busybodies.”
[6] Paul’s mention of the man being created first here may in fact be a reference to the entire Creation narrative, so he wouldn’t have just the childbearing piece in mind, but everything that comes after that, including the offspring of the woman (Jesus) crushing Satan’s head. This is not uncommon for a NT writer or speaker to “economize” their words. Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14 about the virgin being with child to call to mind the entire Messianic section of Isaiah 6–11; Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1 on the cross to remind people that much of what is written in that psalm is coming true in his crucifixion.
I preached this message on March 12, 2023, Third Sunday in Lent, at Mt. View Presbyterian Church. The Gospel text was pretty much the entire chapter of John 4, so instead of reading all that, I showed a clip from The Chosen, Season 1, Episode 8, where Jesus encounters the woman at the well. Unfortunately, I forgot to record the message, so I do not have an audio file to share with you at this time.
Someone might think John was trying to create scandal from the very first words of his Gospel. In the first couple verses, he claims Jesus is God and was present at creation. The Jewish leaders would have considered that blasphemy. John the Baptizer, who is NOT the same John who wrote this gospel, goes on to claim he is the one sent to prepare the way for the Messiah, and upon Jesus’s baptism, John declares him to be the Son of God.
Then, instead of picking the leading religious rulers of his day, Jesus chooses a few fishermen and other average, everyday men to be in his band of disciples. After that, instead of his first miracle being a healing or exorcism, he decides to make about 180 gallons of premium wine so the party can keep going at the wedding. Then John throws in a story about Jesus cleansing the temple of the money changers and about how he’ll be able to rebuild the temple in three days if it’s destroyed. In John 3, he declares that belief in him ensures eternal life. Again, probably grounds for blasphemy if he were just an ordinary man.
And so we come to John chapter 4, and the scandalous behavior continues. How dare he travel through Samaria! His disciples would have rather walked the extra distance around Samaria rather than soil their sandals with the dust of that land. How dare he talk to a Samaritan woman, let alone ask her for a drink from Jacob’s well, especially when the rest of his followers aren’t around. Don’t you know, Jesus, that we’re not supposed to even touch the Samaritans let alone eat and drink with them?
Many of you know that the Gospel of John is unique in that it has many stories about Jesus’s ministry that are not reflected in the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Many think that John may have organized his Gospel theologically rather than chronologically. For example, the story of Jesus clearing the temple, which is found in chapter 2 of John’s gospel, is placed in the last week of Jesus’s ministry. It’s not clear whether this is the same story, or if there were two different episodes when Jesus cleared the temple.
Jesus is in the land of his ancestors, so it seems fitting, at least to John, that Jesus would want to reveal himself first to his ancestors.
For the sake of argument, then, I’m going to assume there’s a theological message John is trying to get across here: He establishes Jesus is fully divine and that God is his Father. Since he’s God’s “only begotten” on Earth, Jesus then is the primary authority in the Temple, which the Jews believed was home of God’s presence. Finally, Jesus, having been established as the authority for the Jewish religion, essentially abolishes the long-standing prejudice against Samaria by going to the place where his ancestor Judah’s father, Jacob (renamed Israel) first established himself in the Promised Land after returning from Laban’s home. I think this aspect of the story lends to its credibility and to the principle of worship he puts forth.
One of the most important things to note about this encounter with the woman is that Jesus actually takes the time to have a real conversation with the woman, although he slowly reveals that he knows more about her than she thinks he knows. Jesus is in the land of his ancestors, so it seems fitting, at least to John, that Jesus would want to reveal himself first to his ancestors. That would be like me going to the Stocking Township, named after my great, great, great grandfather in the Wahoo area, or perhaps even to the historic site of the 12th-century Stocking Abbey in England, where my ancestors likely came from and ministering to a congregation in either of those places.
So what can we learn from the encounter between Jesus and this woman? The first thing is that Jesus did not recognize the ethnic boundaries that existed in his day and age. The Samaritans followed only the Torah, the five books of Moses, but not the prophets who came later. So they were a people who had deep Jewish roots, but because the Northern Kingdom had been conquered within a couple generations of rise of the prophets and the prohibition against intermarriage had been abandoned, they had little connection to the prophets and they were no longer considered “pure” Jews. The Jews considered them unclean. That didn’t matter to Jesus, though. He wanted the Samaritans to know that a “prophet” had returned to the area after some 700 years,
Because the Jews considered Samaritans unclean, they weren’t permitted to eat or drink from any of any of their plates or vessels. And the fact that she was divorced several times, well beyond what Jewish law would have permitted to remain in good standing, added to her social stigma among her own people not to mention the Jews. This is another barrier that Jesus would shatter: that it was okay to eat and drink with “sinners” and other outcasts like tax collectors.
The other New Testament text from today’s lectionary reading is Romans 5:1–11. Verses 6–8 say this:
6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.[1]
Did you catch that? This is really important to understand. When we cry out to God for help, does he say “Quit your womanizing! Quit lying! Quit getting drunk! Then you can come to me and I’ll consider your request?” By no means! That passage doesn’t say Christ died for those who’ve cleaned up their lives first. It says Christ died for the ungodly, while we were still sinners! That sounds like we can have a great weight lifted from us so we can see more hope and more light at the end of whatever dark tunnel sin has led us through. God loves us even before we realize that his love is the greatest gift of all, even when we think we may not be worthy of it. That’s grace!
The offer of “living water” is the centerpiece of the story. Parts of this story hearkens back to Isaiah 49:6 and 10, a prophecy about the Servant of the Lord and the restoration of Israel:
5 And now the Lord says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.
…
10 They will neither hunger nor thirst,
nor will the desert heat or the sun beat down on them.
He who has compassion on them will guide them
and lead them beside springs of water. [2]
This woman seems to have been suffering for some time because she felt like she needed to draw water in the heat of the day. We don’t know very much about her personal life aside from the divorces; no indication she had any children or what her current relationship was like. This leads us to another principle at play here: Don’t be afraid to speak to someone about whatever it is in their life that is holding them back from a full and vibrant relationship with God. Now Jesus had some special knowledge of her situation here, so he holds the advantage, but it’s for her benefit ultimately. Once he discloses what he knows about her marital status, she understands not only that Jesus is a prophet, but she also believes his claim that he is the Messiah and shared that convincingly with many people in her town.
Don’t be afraid to speak to someone about whatever it is in their life that is holding them back from a full and vibrant relationship with God.
Jeremiah mentions a couple times (2:13; 17:13) about how his listeners have “forsaken the LORD, the spring of living water.” But Zechariah, when prophesying about the second coming of Christ and the consummation of history, says this in 14:8:
On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and in winter.
9 The Lord will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one Lord, and his name the only name.[3]
This is the ultimate and absolute promise of fulfillment we can look forward to when we humble ourselves before God and accept his free gifts of reconciliation and salvation. God will be in total control. No more crying, pain, or grief, just living eternally in the glory of God’s light.
Turning back to Romans 5 for a moment, Paul describes what happens when we come into that justification, and the woman seems to have experienced that, especially with respect to addressing the own suffering she had experienced for so long. Listen to verses 1–5:
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. [4]
The final takeaway from this passage is how Jesus is overturning the traditions (and exclusions) about worship. The woman was upset about how the Jews thought the Temple in Jerusalem was the only place you could really worship God. In fact, it seems like she’s trying to use that to get out of talking about her marital history. But Jesus assures her that a new way of worship has arrived. The place no longer matters; what matters is expressing her true feelings and emotions from her heart, soul, and mind to praise God for all he’s done for her. It’s that joy that causes her to leave her water jars behind and hurry back to her people proclaiming, “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?”[5]
John notes that the woman at the well was responsible, by virtue of her testimony, for many in her town believing, and they had that testimony confirmed by Jesus himself, because he stayed there a few days preaching and teaching. They knew the joy of personal justification and reconciliation with God. They also found the hope of eternal life as well. Listen to Romans 5:9–11:
9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.[6]
My prayer for you this Lenten and Easter season is that you know the salvation of God and receive it with joy just as the woman at the well did. Let us hold fast to our faith and hope and continue to reach out to those who need to experience God’s love, forgiveness, compassion and grace. Amen.
[1] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[2] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[3] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[4] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[5] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[6] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Click the “Play” button above to hear the message.
Sermon preached at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, February 12, 2023, Sixth Sunday after Epiphany in the Revised Common Lectionary.
We’ve seen it before, right? Maybe in a soap opera or in an edgier Hallmark movie, if there is such a thing. It starts with a misstep, maybe innocent, maybe not so innocent. Someone forgets a birthday; the other makes that purchase that there’s no room in the budget for or that sets back the hope of a special trip. The husband is spending too much time in his “cave” watching sports or the news while the wife is struggling in the kitchen or with the kids. Then there’s the “not tonight, honey,” which may come from genuine exhaustion, or worse, maybe that’s the first expression of a spark of anger.
In a marriage, if such anger is left unchecked, or there’s not an immediate recognition that something may be going wrong, things start to happen in our head, and perhaps in our soul. Seeds of doubt may begin to creep in. You think a coworker may be noticing you more; that innocent conversation with someone of the opposite sex in the line at the Starbuck’s or grocery store touches you in such a way that it latches on to one of those seeds of anger or doubt, and the inappropriate desire starts taking root. Now you’re not just thinking that coworker is noticing you more; you’re actively seeking their attention. The woman in line slips you a business card or note with her personal “digits” (that’s phone number for those of us over 40) on the back.
And again, if left unchecked, eventually the ugly truth will come out. At some point, one or both get triggered by something the other does, and there’s an ugly fight. “You don’t pay attention to me anymore!” “You don’t love me anymore!” With each little stumble down the slippery slope, it becomes more and more critical that some kind of intervention is needed. One of two things may happen at this point: the couple realizes their need to turn things around. They make the attempt, oftentimes successful, to reconfirm their oaths or vows to each other, reconcile, and get back on the right track. But unfortunately, sometimes things progress so badly, or the reconciliation gets derailed because of a lack of commitment to it, the “D” word rears its ugly head, and the opportunity for any reconciliation fades into the sunset.
Jesus’s teaching in this part of the Sermon on the Mount really is about setting some boundaries for ourselves.
Now I set up this little scenario not because I want to talk about marriage in my message, but because I thought it might be a fairly concise way to show that the passage we just read from the Sermon on the Mount is not as disjointed as it may seem. I could have just as easily crafted the scenario to fit a friendship or a business relationship. What Jesus says in today’s gospel passage naturally flows from the claim he made in last week’s Lectionary gospel passage:
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”[1]
The apostle Paul puts it this way in Romans 10:4:
4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.[2]
The New Living Translation puts it this way:
4 For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God.[3]
Another way to put this is that the life Jesus lived while he dwelt with us on Earth was the embodiment of the law. He showed people what it meant to live a righteous life in God’s eyes. It wasn’t just about keeping the letter of the law; Jesus here is confronting the lax attitude about the law that seems to have taken hold in his day, perhaps enhanced by the strict legalism of the pharisees. Let’s take a closer look.
Now these passages have some difficult words for us to hear and may bring up some painful memories or even some feelings of guilt, especially for those of us who have been divorced when we get to that passage, but I want to emphasize this: If you are in Christ, who has accomplished everything the Law set out to do, then you share in that accomplishment. You have a share in that righteousness. Your sins have been forgiven and you have the absolute guarantee of eternal life. The old has gone, and the new has come. So take heart in that assurance of new and abundant life as we work our way through this difficult passage.
We’re looking at four of the last six sections of Matthew 5 this morning. You probably noticed that Jesus had a little formula he used to introduce each section: “You have heard people tell you X, but I’m going to tell you Y, and why X is shortsighted.” In the four sections we’re looking at today, Jesus is encountering an attitude that many people still have today about how good they think they are: “I’ve never killed anyone; I’ve never cheated on my wife; I’ve never stolen anything; so I don’t know why God wouldn’t let me into heaven.” What Jesus is saying in these passages is that these “big-time” sins are really just the ultimate expression of the attitude of our hearts.
Jesus first deals with the command, “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder is a technical, legal term that refers to an intentional, illegal or unethical act of taking someone’s life. It doesn’t refer to the defense of one’s self, family, or country; it doesn’t refer to the death penalty justly applied; and it doesn’t refer to accidents. Jesus makes that clear by how he interprets that command: it’s not so much about actually killing someone, although that’s definitely forbidden: it’s about the attitude or disposition of your heart toward a person. Jesus equates getting angry with someone to murder, especially if that anger degrades into some pretty nasty name calling. “Raca” was probably the equivalent in the Hebrew language of a certain word describing a body part people use today. “You fool” comes from the Greek word from which we get the English word “moron.”
Murder is a technical, legal term that refers to an intentional, illegal or unethical act of taking someone’s life. It doesn’t refer to the defense of one’s self, family, or country; it doesn’t refer to the death penalty justly applied; and it doesn’t refer to accidents.
Anger is a natural reaction we have to situations that upset us, but because it’s dangerous to dwell on that anger too much, Jesus exhorts his listeners to deal with that anger quickly by going straight to the person who angered you and work it out, peacefully. Paul recognizes this principle from Psalm 4:4 as well when he says in Ephesians: “Get angry, but don’t sin. Don’t let the sun go down while you’re still angry, and don’t give the devil a foothold.” That’s why anger is just as dangerous as murder, because it allows the devil to get in and wreak havoc on our own lives.
The first paper I did in my first year of seminary was on this next section on adultery. I entitled it “Lusting, Lopping, and Living.” My instructor was so impressed with the title when I proposed it that he said he’d give me an A based on the title! Like murder, the physical act of adultery, having sex with another person in a marriage covenant relationship in violation of your own marriage covenant, was the ultimate expression of despising your covenant. This was not unique to the Jews; many cultures of the day had moral or legal sanctions against adultery.
Jesus again stresses the seriousness of any disposition we might have to take a misstep in the direction of adultery. He uses hyperbole here. He’s not really talking about cutting off body parts or gouging out our eyes. He’s saying cut out of our lives those things that might foster such an attitude. Job said, “I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman.”[4] Martin Luther advised that you can’t keep the birds from flying overhead, but you can keep them from nesting in your hair. Proverbs warns about being seduced by a “wayward” or “adulterous” woman. Many Christians have adopted the principle of never being alone in a room or other confined space with someone of the opposite sex to guard against even the accusation of adultery or impropriety. Maintaining an unimpeachable integrity in this regard requires establishing some pretty strict boundaries.
This brings us to the passage on divorce. Again, having been there myself, I know that those who are divorced go through some pretty serious soul searching. Feelings of failure, guilt, anger, grief, and a host of others are common, but as I said earlier, it’s important to realize that, in Christ, we have all that forgiven and covered by the blood of Jesus. That doesn’t mean all those feelings go away, necessarily, but they begin to pale in comparison in the light of our Savior’s love and healing.
What Jesus is addressing in verses 31 and 32 is not so much the consequences of divorce as he is the seriousness of it. We know from Matthew 19:8 that Moses had permitted writing a notice of divorce because of the hardness of Israel’s hearts. That’s never what God intended. Jesus is saying here that divorce carries several social and perhaps religious consequences with it that could stigmatize both parties permanently, negatively impacting their standing in the community, so be careful about such an “easy out” as writing out a bill of divorce.
Jesus is saying here that divorce carries several social and perhaps religious consequences with it that could stigmatize both parties permanently, negatively impacting their standing in the community.
We do have the writings of the rabbis in Jesus’s day about bills of divorce. One school of rabbis argued that if a wife “spoiled a dish,” that was a legitimate ground for divorce. Other schools were not quite so lenient. It would take some act of marital infidelity or perhaps even abuse or abandonment to justify divorce. In one passage from these writings, there’s a scenario about if a husband writes a bill of divorce and sends it to her by another person, but then changes his mind and gets back to her before the bill of divorce gets to her, he can tell her he’s nullifying the bill of divorce he sent her that she presumably knows nothing about. Yeah, that would go over well. Of course, if he gets there after the bill of divorce arrives, it’s too late to nullify it. These are just some of the examples about how flippantly at times the Jews acted about divorce.
If you know someone who is struggling with divorce, some congregations sponsor an excellent program called Divorce Care. I went through it myself, and it helped me immensely in dealing with all the feelings and emotions I was experiencing. If you need help finding such a group, just let me know. I’d be glad to put you in touch with them, or you can check out divorcecare.org.
Finally, we come to the passage on oaths. I think it’s significant that this passage comes after the divorce section that deals with violating a covenant promise. An oath is different from a covenant in that it typically invoked the name of God, heaven, or some other sacred place or object. Violating an oath thus given would bring shame on the oath maker and insult the reputation of God or other sacred places or article sworn on. Jesus warns it’s better not to make any oath at all and just do what you say you’re going to do, or not do what you say you won’t do. “All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[5]” Here, we can call upon the profound wisdom of Pastor Yoda, I mean, Master Yoda: “Do or do not. There is no try.”
I’m not sure if my youngest daughter had this passage in mind when she and her husband got married a couple years ago. Everything was set up and beautifully decorated in the fairgrounds building where they got married. All the guests were seated, including the ceremonial seating of the parents and grandparents. I gave my permission when the officiant asked (or did he ask me?) and took my seat. He started the ceremony by asking Tim if he took Emma to be his wife, and he said yes. Then he asked Emma if she took Tim to be her husband. She responded yes as well. And without any further ado, the officiant announced that they were husband and wife, and that was the end of the ceremony! It took longer to walk everyone down the aisle than it did to go through the ceremony. No set of vows, no “until death do you part,” or anything like that. Short, simple, sweet. Everyone had the rest of the night to celebrate.
So to sum up here: Jesus’s teaching in this part of the Sermon on the Mount really is about setting some boundaries for ourselves so we can do our part to “deliver ourselves from the evil” around us, to guard against and defend ourselves from dangers within and without that would try to separate us from God. Jesus is fulfilling the promise that God gave in Jeremiah 31:33:
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.”[6]
Jesus calls us to not only give God first place in our hearts, but in our minds also, that we might know the heart and mind of God through him and see a lost world through eyes of the Savior who came to redeem his creation. Grace and peace to you all. Amen.
Scott Stocking
My opinions are my own conclusions based on my study of this passage.
[1] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[2] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[3] Tyndale House Publishers. 2015. Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
[4] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[5] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[6] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Message preached at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, NE, January 29, 2023. Text is lightly edited for publication.
Click above to play audio recording of the message.
David Letterman used to do his “Top 10” list every night on his late-night show. Often it was done tongue-in-cheek, usually with some sort of biting sarcasm or political slam on the issues of the day. But I want to ask you about a serious “Top 10” list. If you had to list out your top 10 favorite Bible verses or passages, what would they be? We’ll make this audience participation this morning: I’ll name a few passages here, and if you want to raise your hand and acknowledge the passage I mention, that would be great.
How about John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life.
Psalm 23:1: The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
Ephesians 2:8: It is by grace you are saved, through faithfulness, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.
Romans 8:1: There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:38–39: For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
How many of you would have today’s passage, Matthew 5:1–12, the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, on your list? I know I would.
As we come to look at this passage today, I want to spend just a few minutes putting it into context. Don’t worry, I’m not going to get super technical here; I just want to make a couple connections to the Old Testament so that we can understand where some of the terminology comes from and what the words mean.
One of the first things we notice here is Jesus’s use of the word “blessed” at the beginning of each line of the Beatitudes. This is an important word to understand and not mistranslate lest we diminish its meaning. Let’s look at what the word doesn’t mean.
Eugene Peterson, author of The Message, a contemporary paraphrase of the Bible, tells the story of how he wanted to translate this passage. He mentioned that after preaching one Sunday, a woman came up to him afterwards and mentioned how “lucky” she felt to have found his congregation.
Peterson ruminated on that a bit, as he was in the process of writing the paraphrase at the time and thought “lucky” might be a more contemporary word that could be used in place “blessed.” However, when he floated that idea with his publishers, they shot it down pretty quickly, because there’s a large segment of Christianity that associates the word “luck” with “Lucifer.” That might be a buzz kill for someone wanting to publish a Bible translation.
Whether that connection is true is not relevant to understanding the word (makarios), however. The word “blessed” implies that something is coming from someone who has the power to give you something special or grant you a special permission in his kingdom. “Luck” has nothing to do with that. Peterson eventually accepted the word “blessed” here, because he recognized the word best represented the meaning of the text.
The same can be said for the Good News paraphrase treatment of the passage. That was the one that had a paperback cover that looked like a newspaper. They tried using the word “happy” to translate “blessed,” but again, it didn’t quite fit the intention of the biblical author. “Happiness” is circumstantial; it depends on what “happens” in our life. “Blessed” refers to a permanent state we have in God’s eyes, which is in fact what Jesus, through Matthew’s account, is trying to communicate to us here. The source of God’s blessings are neither “luck” nor “happenstance.” The blessing comes from God himself.
The first word of the first psalm in the collection of Psalms in the OT is “blessed.” “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, but whose delight is in the law of the Lord….” It’s quite possible in our Matthew passage, then, that he’s organized Jesus’s teaching in such a way that the Beatitudes are sort of an “introductory psalm” to his Gospel and to the teaching of Jesus.
In fact, the first 12 verses here have many characteristics of a certain type of psalm: The lines begin with the same word throughout; there are several key words that begin primarily with one of three consonant sounds: the p, k, or l. I have no idea if there’s any significance to those letters, but it seems intentional that Matthew did this, or that Jesus chose his words as such, to establish some sort of “beat” or “rhythm” to the opening passage, much like a psalm would have had. So with that in mind, I’ve created my own “Beatitudes Beat” that adds some real-life allusions to situations many of us have faced or will face in our lives in order to help us understand what Jesus may have been thinking when he preached these words to a large crowd outside Galilee. I hope you’ll find it both enjoyable and memorable.
Before I get into the beat, though, there’s one more term I want to provide some biblical context for. The English word “meek” (Greek πραΰς pra-us; Hebrew עָנָו ʿānāw) is often misunderstood, because it sounds so much like its opposite. “Meekness” is NOT the same thing as and is in fact contrary to “weakness.” Meekness implies a sort of restrained or harnessed strength, like that of a bridled horse. Psalm 37:8–11 gives us a pretty solid picture of what meekness means:
8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;
do not fret—it leads only to evil.
9 For those who are evil will be destroyed,
but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land.
10 A little while, and the wicked will be no more;
though you look for them, they will not be found.
11 But the meek will inherit the land
and enjoy peace and prosperity. [1]
Notice the tone of the verses. The psalmist gives us hope that God will deal with evil and wicked people in his own time. We can have hope in his righteous judgment on the wicked. Look at the parallel wording in verses 9 & 11. Who inherits the land? Those who hope in the Lord are made equal to the meek when it comes to inheriting the land and enjoying peace and prosperity.
Regardless of what you may think of the politics of the situation, I think a perfect example of meekness we saw this week would be the mother whose son was beaten by the Memphis police. She called for calm and to not repeat the violent and destructive protests of a few years ago. That shows incredible restraint and strength of character in the face of a truly tragic situation. That’s what meekness is: keeping calm and carrying on while leaving the big stuff to God. Having made those two clarifications, let’s jump into the “Beatitudes Beat” and see what God wants us to see.
When doubt creeps in
Because you see so much sin:
Blessed are the poor in spirit.
When your vision gets blurred
And you can’t see God’s word:
Blessed are the poor in spirit.
When life drains you
But God’s hope sustains you
And His people maintain you:
Blessed are the poor in Spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
When your loved ones sleep
Awaiting God’s keep:
Blessed are those who mourn.
When your loss is profound
And you’re on shaky ground:
Blessed are those who mourn.
When you can’t see your way
At the end of the day
And all you can do is pray:
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they will be comforted.
When your anger is strong
But you hold your tongue:
Blessed are the meek.
When you know evil’s fate
And remember God is great
Blessed are the meek
When your hope’s in the Lord
Standing firm on his word
Wielding the Spirit’s sword
Blessed are the meek,
For they will inherit the earth.[2]
When your soul has been stirred
And you long for God’s word:
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.
When you know hope is true
And God’s carried you through:
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.
When you know God’s healing,
Faith is more than a feeling
And with joy you are reeling:
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they will be filled.
When your love is displayed
To those dismayed:
Blessed are the merciful.
When you’re good to those
Who would bloody your nose,
Blessed are the merciful.
When you see the pain of a mother
Or the hurt of a brother
And with God’s love you do cover:
Blessed are the merciful,
For they will be shown mercy.
When you know you’ve done right
‘Cuz you’re a child of the Light
Blessed are the pure in heart.
When you stand for the truth
And your life is its proof:
Blessed are the pure in heart.
When you speak by the Spirit
So that all flesh may hear it
And no one will fear it:
Blessed are the pure in heart
For they will see God.
When the hurt you’ve received
Needs to be relieved
Blessed are the peacemakers
When the hurt that you’ve given
Needs to be forgiven:
Blessed are the peacemakers.
When you see the strife
Of husband and wife
And offer them new life:
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they will be called children of God.
When you stand for what’s right
And the world picks a fight:
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness.
When you defend the innocent
The world treats with malevolence;
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness.
When you take a stand
For God and land
Upheld by His right hand:
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
© Scott Stocking, February 4, 2023
And that is the Beatitudes Beat.
Jesus closes out the first section of his Sermon on the Mount with these words in vv. 11–12:
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.[3]
The overall message of the Beatitudes reminds me of the section of the scroll of Isaiah Jesus read in Luke 4:18–19. The fuller context of that passage from Isaiah 61:1–3 has some strong parallels to the Beatitudes, as you’ll hear:
The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of joy
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the Lord
for the display of his splendor.[4]
Jesus says in the Beatitudes that in spite of the ups and downs of the life of faithful followers of Christ, we can always be glad, whatever we face, because we know we have a great reward in heaven, and a great cloud of witnesses around us who have gone through the same cycles of the faith that you and I go through. Take heart then: be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Know that the perfect love reflected in the Beatitudes can cast out all fear when we live in the Beatitudes Beat.
[1] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[2] See Psalm 37:8–11
[3] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[4] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
This is a poem I wrote for a sermon on the Beatitudes, Matthew 5:1–12, to convey the meaning of each Beatitude. I delivered it as part of the message “Living in the Beatitudes Beat,” which you can also find on this blog. The message was delivered at Mt. View Presbyterian Church, January 29, 2023.
When doubt creeps in
Because you see so much sin:
Blessed are the poor in spirit.
When your vision gets blurred
And you can’t see God’s word:
Blessed are the poor in spirit.
When life drains you
But God’s hope sustains you
And His people maintain you:
Blessed are the poor in Spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
When your loved ones sleep
Awaiting God’s keep:
Blessed are those who mourn.
When your loss is profound
And you’re on shaky ground:
Blessed are those who mourn.
When you can’t see your way
At the end of the day
And all you can do is pray:
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they will be comforted.
When your anger is strong
But you hold your tongue:
Blessed are the meek.
When you know evil’s fate
And remember God is great:
Blessed are the meek.
When your hope’s in the Lord
Standing firm on his word
Wielding the Spirit’s sword:
Blessed are the meek,
For they will inherit the earth.[1]
When your soul has been stirred
And you long for God’s word:
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.
When you know hope is true
And God’s carried you through:
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.
When you know God’s healing,
Faith is more than a feeling,
And with joy you are reeling:
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they will be filled.
When your love is displayed
To those dismayed:
Blessed are the merciful.
When you’re good to those
Who would bloody your nose:
Blessed are the merciful.
When you see the pain of a mother
Or the hurt of a brother,
And with God’s love you do cover:
Blessed are the merciful,
For they will be shown mercy.
When you know you’ve done right
Because you’re a child of the Light:
Blessed are the pure in heart.
When you stand for the truth
And your life is its proof:
Blessed are the pure in heart.
When you speak by the Spirit
So that all flesh may hear it
And no one will fear it:
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they will see God.
When the hurt you’ve received
Needs to be relieved
Blessed are the peacemakers.
When the hurt that you’ve given
Needs to be forgiven:
Blessed are the peacemakers.
When you see the strife
Of husband and wife
And offer them new life:
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they will be called children of God.
When you stand for what’s right
And the world picks a fight:
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness.
When you defend the innocent
The world treats with malevolence:
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness.
When you take a stand
For God and land
Upheld by His right hand:
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
© Scott Stocking, February 4, 2023
Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.
[1] See Psalm 37:8–11
This is a “Site Map” of sorts for my more popular posts.
Follow and communicate with me on Facebook: Sunday Morning Greek Blog (FB)
IMPORTANT NOTE: I’ve now added an e-mail option to the blog so you can contact me directly. scott.stocking@sundaymorninggreekblog.com.
NOTE: Scroll down past this post to see the latest articles.
The year of our Lord 2025 was a great year for the Sunday Morning Greek Blog. Views continue to increase year over year, so I’m grateful for that. While my viral math post views have dropped significantly this year, readers more than compensated for that by viewing more Bible posts. My message “Jesus the Good Shepherd” from 2022 showed up repeatedly as source in some search engines’ AI summaries of the topic, which boosted views on that article enough to put it in the top 10 posts for 2025.
Toward the end of the year, I signed up for the Google Console to try to learn more about how you are finding my material. However, I also noticed a significant dip in traffic around the same time. I’m thinking that may have been a mistake. If anyone out there has experience with that, let me know. Ostensibly I did that so I could increase traffic, but I think it may be downgrading me on the searches, even though I think my SEO skills are pretty good. My church used my posts on John’s gospel for its church-wide small-group Bible studies this past fall. Romans is up next for this spring, and I’ve been invited to kick off that study to the small groups in February.
Peace to all and Happy New Year! Thank you for reading.
PS: Look for a couple posts in the near future about our family trip to Poland and Prague over the Christmas holiday.
In late April 2023, I published a post on a non-Bible topic analyzing an oft-debated viral equation that is poorly understood. At the end of June of that year, the post went viral and has continued to dominate the top spot representing about half the views to my blog in the past two years. It is my most-viewed post of all time in the blog’s 14-year history. I have written several other blog posts on the subject and have made three videos for the Rumble platform. I list all the articles and videos here in reverse chronological order along with the dates they were published.
Related Articles:
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.
[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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sunday Morning Greek Blog 