I recognize this is off-topic for my blog, but I love math. And I also discovered that Greek grammar has some features of math properties or laws, so it’s only mostly off-topic.
For expressions and equations that have elements featuring a mix of explicit and implicit operations, implicit operations should be done first without immediate regard to or influence of explicit operational signs. Implicit operations include any form of grouping that involves paired grouping symbols, any juxtapositional grouping or pairing without explicit operational signs implying a particular operation, or a combination of both.
Supporting Evidence for the Bottom Line (added 01/19/24, ~5:45 am CST)
In the .pdf file linked below, the first table describes Implicit Constructions in mathematics and demonstrates that they each have their own unique Syntax and Orientation that leads to an implication (thus the word “implicit”) for how they’re handled in any math expression, specifically that they are given priority in the Order of Operations over explicit (existing) operational signs (+ – x ÷). The second table demonstrates the actual Implicit Operations that take place (e.g., finding a common denominator; converting to an improper fraction, etc.) before addressing explicit operational signs. In ALL cases, implicit operations should be worked prior to explicit operational signs.
I know this is a Greek language blog, but math uses Greek characters sometimes, so there’s at least a tenuous connection. And all truth is God’s truth, even in Mathematics, for which God created the principles, properties, and laws. Being a former high school math teacher myself, I was disappointed at the lack of knowledge of fundamental laws and properties in math that led to many people thinking Expression 1 did not equal 1 in certain viral social media threads. In an effort to restore some truth to people’s mathematical knowledge, I present the following proof that the answer to Expression 1 is ALWAYS AND FOREVER 1.
Expression 1
8 ÷ 2(2 + 2)
Conventions vs. Laws
Many people in the social media chains trying to tackle this problem were claiming that following the order of operations they learned in and impressively remembered from grade school was the correct way to approach the problem:
Parentheses
Exponents
Multiplication/Division LTR
Addition/Subtraction LTR
This order is commonly known in American math as PEMDAS and recalled by the sentence “Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally.” I do not deny the importance of PEMDAS, but the reality of the problem is, any basic math problem like this can only have one correct answer. It’s not and never a matter of personal interpretation. Otherwise, the foundations of mathematics would crumble into oblivion, and not even Common Core could save us (not that it ever did anyone any good). This is math; it doesn’t care about and is never affected by your feelings about it.
PEMDAS is only a tool for organizing the operations in the problem, but by itself, it is not sufficient to solve the problem correctly. In fact, PEMDAS isn’t a mathematical law at all. It is merely an agreed-upon convention to work “linear” math problems. Math does have many laws or properties that come into play and must be considered in the PEMDAS process, and PEMDAS is subservient to these laws. Nothing about the correct solution I’m about to show you violates PEMDAS, provided you correctly interpret the forms of the individual expressions within the larger expression and how the various laws and principles apply.
If you think back to your primary school math lessons, you may have a vague memory of a set of laws[1] about the relationships of numbers in certain types of expressions. For example, the Associative Properties of addition and multiplication say that no matter how you group the numbers in their respective equations, the sum (addition) or product (multiplication) will always be the same. The Commutative Properties for these two operations are similar; the order of the order or arrangement of the elements in an expression does not affect the value of either expression. These Associative Properties are represented in Expressions 2 and 3, while the Commutative Properties are in 4 and 5:
Expression 2: Associative Property of Addition:
(a + b) + c = a + (b + c)
Expression 3: Associative Property of Multiplication:
(a * b) * c = a * (b * c)
Expression 4: Commutative Property of Addition
a + b = b + a
Expression 5: Commutative Property of Multiplication.
ab = ba
The expressions on either side of the equal sign in the respective equations above reveal another principle of math, that of identical expressions. They look different, but regardless of the values assigned to each variable, they will always be equal. This is also called an identity.[2]
The other important thing to know is that PEMDAS, unlike the Associative and Commutative Properties, is not a law! It is merely a convention for solving a problem that is subject to these laws. PEMDAS does NOT usurp these laws. This is where people are getting tripped up on solving Expression 1 or similar expressions for that matter. I will demonstrate how the correct application of these laws within the framework of PEMDAS will ALWAYS yield the answer of 1, NOT 16 or some other number.
Solving the Expression
One other law must be brought to the fore to solve this expression: the Distributive Property. This is slightly different from the other four laws, in that it involves both addition and multiplication, and it establishes a common equation form that must be worked the same way every time it is found within an equation. Wolfram Research is considered one of the premier math knowledge platforms in the world, so I will draw on their examples of the Distributive Property to make my point. If anyone wants to challenge me on my conclusions drawn from this source, you’ll have to do better than a cheesy homework help Web site. The Wolfram Web sites have two different ways of writing the Distributive formula. BOTH equations are identical expressions and should be solved the same way every time regardless of where they fall in an equation.
Expression 6: Distributive with intervening multiplication operator
a * (b + c) = ab + ac (and of course, if you’re using all real numbers, combine like terms).[3],[4]
Expression 7: Distributive without intervening multiplication operator
a(b + c) =ab + ac (and of course, if you’re using all real numbers, combine like terms).[5]
Whether the expression has the multiplication operator or not, you would treat both as an expression to be solved BEFORE leaving the P step in PEMDAS. The actions UPON the parenthetical result must be completed BEFORE leaving the P step.
For purposes of demonstration later on, we can also apply the Commutative Property of Multiplication to the Distributive property form. We have two “factors” (the a and the (b + c)), so we can rearrange them and still have the same result. In the case of the current form, if we put the a term to the left as written in Expression 7 above, this form of the expression is said to be left distributive (i.e., the a multiplies through from left to right). If the a term is to the right of the parentheses, then the form is called right distributive.[6] See Expression 8 below. The right distributive form of the expression is an identical expression to the left distributive form. I will use this to demonstrate that PEMDAS is not consistent if you don’t first solve the expression in distributive property form.
Expression 8
(b + c)a = ba + ca (and combine like terms if using all real numbers).
Are you with me so far? Maybe you see where I’m going with this? The expression to the right of the division sign must be processed as and simplified to an individual, inseparable term, because it is in the form of a Distributive Property expression. It has parentheses after all, so it must be dealt with before being divided into 8. So here’s the explanation of solving the equation as written:
This then leaves you with the final expression (Expression 10) to be solved:
Expression 10
8 ÷ (8) = 1
QED
Why the Answer Is NEVER 16 or Any Other Number
I am going to offer several proofs or citations that demonstrate why PEMDAS is not sufficient by itself to solve this problem. The first citation comes from a 1935 textbook for advanced algebra.7 Here is what the authors say:
“If the multiplication of two or more numbers is indicated, as in 4m or 5a2, without any symbol of multiplication, it is customary to think of the multiplication as already performed.
Thus 4m2 ÷ 2m = 4m2/2m, not (4m2/2)m.”
This equation (original to the authors’ text) has the same basic form of Expression 1, with the only difference being all real numbers are used in Expression 1. I’m guessing that all of you agree that the expression to the immediate right of the equal sign in the example above is the correct way to interpret the expression on the Left. And of course, the expression on the right simplifies down to simply 2m. The other form, which you get if you do strict PEMDAS without any other consideration, simplifies to 2m3. You all know the 2m is correct, right? That’s the way we all learned how to process variables with coefficients. So if m = 2, we should expect an answer of 4, not 16. 4(4) ÷ 2(2) = 16 ÷ 4 = 4. If you do it the strict PEMDAS only way, then you get 4(4)/2 * 2 = 16/2 * 2 = 16. Wrong answer, therefore, the wrong method to solve.
[Additional notes and evidence added 08/05/2023 (italicized).]
From Wolfram MathWorld, the following article on Precedence, which you get to from the WolframAlpha description of “Order of Operations,” discusses the concept of “advanced operations” that “bind more tightly.” It then contrasts that with “simple operations.” Although Wolfram does not detail what those two concepts embrace, multiplication by juxtaposition (or “implied multiplication”) would be one of those advanced operations that “bind more tightly” and thus have precedence (what is an exponent or factorial if not implied multiplication?), while a “simple operation” would include any expression with all operational signs extant and leave nothing to be implied.
In Wolfram MathWorld’s discussion of the “solidus,” they confirm that most textbooks teach that an equation in the form of a ÷ bc should be interpreted as a ÷ (bc) and NOT ac ÷ b, and then acknowledge that most computational languages, including Wolfram, treat the expression without parentheses in a strictly linear manner without acknowledging the implied multiplication. They say that in order to solve the problem the way the textbooks teach it, or the way most people who actually use real-world equations where it makes a difference, you MUST enter the parentheses in most computational languages (that is the context of MathWorld), including in most calculators. Here’s the definition:
This is solid evidence that the answer to Expression 1 should be 1 and not 16. I’m not blowing smoke, and I’m not trolling. Those who get the answer 16 should rethink their logic.
[Here ends the addition of new material on 08/05/23]
Let’s make the expression in question look a little more like the example I just gave, and remember, that is from an advanced algebra book written by a couple math professors from Columbia U and the U of Southern California. For the expression in question, let m = (2 + 2) and substitute it into the expression, giving us Expression 11.
Expression 11
8 ÷ 2m
You Sixteeners should see right away the error of your PEMDAS-only ways. We don’t break the coefficient away from the variable, so we wouldn’t break it away from what we substitute into the variable. It works both ways. Just like the problem from the textbook, we can clearly see that the answer to “simplified” expression is not 4m, but 4/m. Since we let m = (2 + 2), 4/(2 + 2) = 4/4 = 1. QED.
If that historical example isn’t enough to convince you that PEMDAS alone isn’t correct, consider the following based on my discussion of right- and left-distributive above. As the original equation is written, I’ve already thoroughly demonstrated that the part of the main expression right of the division sign must be treated as an inseparable expression. But for the sake of argument, let’s consider the contention that PEMDAS alone applies without calling on the Distributive Property. As many Sixteeners have demonstrated, this works out to (8/2) * (2 + 2), or 16. However, if we substitute the right-distributive form of the expression in question for the left distributive form, we get Expression 12. Remember, whether right or left, the two expressions are considered equal, or identical.
Expression 12
8 ÷ (2 + 2)2
Expression 12 is, by definition, identical to Expression 1, so we should expect the same answer, right? However, if you apply the PEMDAS-only method on this form of the equation, you get (8/4) * 2, or 4. This PROVES that PEMDAS alone is not sufficient to solve the whole expression, because you get different answers for identical expressions! That is logically impossible in a first-order math equation with real numbers. NOTE: Because I demonstrated that the expressions are themselves equal or identical before solving them, you can’t turn around and say they’re not identical because they get different answers with PEMDAS-only. Distributive property is a law; PEMDAS is a convention. Law trumps convention.
QED
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly
Make a one-time contribution. You do NOT have to contribute to access the article.
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
Or enter a custom amount
$
Your contribution is appreciated. Your contribution is NOT tax deductible. I will report all contributions on the appropriate Federal self-employment income tax form.
Most basic calculators don’t typically recognize the Distributive Property from what I’ve seen. In fact, if you read the manuals of most scientific calculators, you’ll find them admitting that you may need to use parentheses to force it to act according to the laws of mathematics in some instances. (See definition of Solidus above.) So don’t trust your calculators. In fact, I’m willing to bet whoever submitted that problem in the first place most likely knew that about calculators and is rolling on the floor laughing their butts off that many were fooled by the calculator, thus resulting in the social media melee over the problem.
A Comparison to Greek
Since this is primarily a blog about interpreting the Greek New Testament (and occasionally the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament), I couldn’t help but notice that the Commutative and Distributive Properties apply to Greek adjectives and nouns. In Greek, if the definite article is with the adjective and the adjective modifies a noun, then it doesn’t matter which comes first. The phrases are still translated the same way (article+adjective+noun = noun+article+adjective). The same goes for the noun. If the article is with the noun, then the noun is the subject of the phrase and the adjective is the predicate: (article+noun+adjective = adjective+article+noun). The grammatical case, number, and gender of the noun (subject, object, possessive, etc.) distribute through the article and any adjectives associated with it. Who knew solving a math problem would lead me to discover that Greek grammar has some mathematical logic to it!
My opinions are my own, but my well-reasoned conclusions are indisputable!
Scott
Addendum (added 5/14/23)
PEMDAS is shortsighted. It ignores mathematical properties (that is, laws), which take precedence over order of operations like PEMDAS (an accepted convention, not a law or property). I would suggest the “P” in PEMDAS should not only stand for Properties first, but secondarily for Parentheses. Properties are to PEMDAS what the U.S. Code is to subregulatory guidance in legislative speak. Subregulatory guidance has no authority without the force of law behind it. PEMDAS has no power without the force of mathematical properties behind it.
If you use strictly PEMDAS without recognizing the Distributive Property, you wind up with the following, as the sixteeners are interpreting this:
8 ÷ 2(2+2)
Becomes
8 ÷ 2(4)
Becomes
8 ÷ 2 * 4
But let’s not stop there. This becomes, using the multiplicative inverse to change from division to multiplication:
(8 * 1/2) * 4
And applying the Associative property of multiplication, this becomes
8 * (1/2 * 4)
Substituting back in the original parenthetical expression
8 * (1/2 * (2+2))
Look at what happens to the last half of the equation: You’re now dividing (2+2) by 2 when the syntax of the original expression clearly indicates they should be multiplied together using the Distributive Property. The sixteeners have fundamentally changed the syntax of the original expression, which is a violation of the whole process of solving the equation. That’s why 16 is incorrect!
You can’t simply dismiss the Distributive Property here. A property is a law of math that essentially requires no proof. It is superior to and has precedence over PEMDAS, which is not a property at all and, to my knowledge, has never been proven to account for all things could be going on in an expression. That’s why Property should come before parentheses in PEMDAS.
Why You Can’t Trust Graphing Calculators
Look at how Wolfram Alpha handles the basic form of the expression in question as we gradually add information. All images grabbed from Wolfram Alpha on 5/14/23 around 10:30 pm CST). NOTE: I have an acknowledged request to Wolfram Alpha to investigate why the following is happening.
Now provide the values for x, a, b.
Substitute in 8 for x.
Add parentheses with the substitution; same result; solution is 1.
Then put in the 2+2 directly. Solution again is 1. Note that it’s NOT (8/a) * (2+2)
But when I directly enter a value for a, the logic changes.
And the expression as written behaves similarly.
So clearly PEMDAS by itself is not sufficient to process the problem, because you can see that even some of the best graphing calculators don’t process the basic form of the equation consistently. Arguments from your graphing calculator don’t cut it for me. Those are just AI. This is a real demonstration of faulty logic in certain formats. You can’t have two different answers to the same expression. The answer 1 is right; 16 is wrong.
Still Not Convinced? (Added weekend of 5/20/23)
What happens to the way you solve the problem if you change the 2 to a negative sign?
8 ÷ -(2 + 2)
Because the negative sign implies that what is inside the parentheses is multiplied by-1, would you PEMDAS-only proponents then have (8 ÷ -1) x (2 + 2) = -32? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Even the Sixteeners have to admit that the problem should be read as 8 ÷ -4 = -2, thus proving my point that what is outside a parenthetical expression (in this case, -1) and multiplied by implication must be solved first to fully deal with the parentheses.
Or how about if the problem is 6 ÷ 3!? The expression 3! represents an implied multiplication relationship, just as 2(2+2) is. So if it’s implied multiplication, is it then deconstructed to 3*2*1 or 1*2*3? Do you see the problem if you deconstruct it like that? Which order?!? According to the logic of the Sixteeners, it should be. But of course that’s silly. You wouldn’t break up the factorial, just as you shouldn’t break up the two factors of 2(2+2) and make one a divisor.
Making It Real
Here are a few examples of how applying PEMDAS-only to real-world formulas could potentially be disastrous. I posted the following examples on a Facebook post dedicated to one of the viral equations and got no end of criticism for proving PEMDAS wasn’t relevant to solving the problems, because the values now had units of measurement applied, which automatically groups the expressions without the need to resort to extra parentheses or brackets. (I cleaned this up a bit because of the limitations of responding on an iPhone that doesn’t have ready access to the obelus symbol that I’ve found.)
What is the context of the equation? Is it a velocity formula, where v= d/t with d = 36 miles and t = 6(2 + 2 + 2) hours = 36 hours? Then v = 1 mile/hour. Going 36 miles in 36 hours does NOT yield a velocity of 36 miles/hour!
Is it a density formula, where D = m/V with m = 36 kg and V = 6(2 + 2 + 2) cubic cm = 36 cubic cm? Then the answer is 1 kg/cubic cm. Who says the obelus doesn’t have grouping powers!
Johnny, Freddy, Rita, Ginger, Gary, and Nancy each have two apples, two oranges, and two bananas to share with their classmates. The class has 36 people including themselves and the teacher. How many pieces of fruit may each person have? 36 classmates ÷ 6(2 + 2 + 2) classmates*pieces of fruit/classmate) = 36 classmates / 36 pieces of fruit = 1 classmate for every 1 piece of fruit. It’s not 36 pieces of fruit for each classmate!
The resulting equations are PEMDAS-naive, proving that PEMDAS is not always necessary to solve these types of expressions.
[1] Reitz, H. L. & Crathorne, A. R. College Algebra, Third Ed. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1929, pp. 4–5.
[3] If the parenthetical part of the expression has an exponent, you would follow PEMDAS process the exponent before distributing the a through the result (e.g., a(b + c)2 = a(b2 + 2bc + c2) à ab2 + 2abc + ac2.
[4] See the definition at Distributive — from the MathWorld Classroom (wolfram.com) (accessed 04/27/23), where Wolfram also indicates the concept is part of 5th grade math standards in California. The fact that it is a 5th grade standard may explain why the multiplication sign is used.
[5] See a more detailed description at distributive – Wolfram|Alpha (wolframalpha.com) (accessed 04/28/23). This more detailed description includes both expressions, with and without the multiplication sign.
He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.[1]
Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.[2]
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.[3]
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”[4]
For 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. For 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.”[5]
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God p may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.[6]
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.[7]
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.[8]
The other night, just before I was ready to turn in, a long-time acquaintance and friend, Terry, IM’d me and asked me about biblical inerrancy. I hadn’t really given that much thought since seminary because I’ve been pretty settled on the issue for some time, but I thought I’d put down a few of my thoughts that came to mind as he and I briefly chatted.
I believe 2 Timothy 3 that God’s word is inspired, that is, God-breathed. However, I also believe he speaks it both directly and through his fallible servants in a fallen world. He did this through his prophets in an authoritative way, but I don’t doubt that they may have added “local color” to their prophecies.
I believe Jesus commissioned his apostles (and perhaps a few of their successors) with an ex cathedra authority, tempered by mutual accountability, to establish the primitive structure of the early Christian communities, the core doctrines of the faith, and vital practices to share and spread that faith. I do not believe this ex cathedra authority survived past the first or second generation of believers.
I believe the historical books of the OT, from Genesis through Kings and Chronicles, were collated from extant copies of original writings and official journals. Some of these texts have obvious signs of an editor long after the recorded events took place (e.g., 2 Chronicles 20:26).
I believe the Hebrews had in place a diligent process to copy their texts to ensure their accuracy and fidelity from one generation of texts to the next.
I believe the NT autographs (original letters and Gospels) were without error doctrinally and textually. However, since we can be relatively certain that none of these have survived the ravagees of time, this statement has qualified significance. As the letters were copied in scriptoriums, human error inevitably made its way into the successive copies.
I believe the science of the study of textual transmission is more than sufficient in most cases to identify when and where these errors entered into the text and which of the variant readings are the most reliable. I do not believe any of the disputed variations affect any doctrine of Scripture, especially since most doctrines do not rely solely on any one single text. The eclectic Greek text is the best modern version to use, as it takes into account the opinions and research of several qualified scholars.
I believe “the Church of Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one”[9]; the differences we see among and within denominational traditions are reflections of the diversity of God’s kingdom. If we can appreciate the diversity in God’s creation, with hundreds of different varieties within each species, then why should we expect that the local manifestations of the church be copycats? I do not believe that such diversity, by itself, disqualifies the Scriptures in any way.
I believe that anyone who can hear or read the Word of God translated into their own language, regardless of version, can understand and respond to the Gospel at its most basic level. The study of the Word of God in its original languages adds depth and color to the story and may convince some who think the principles taught therein are archaic, pedantic, or irrelevant.
I believe that above all else, love for one another founded in the love God has shown and is still showing us is the highest virtue for the Christ-follower at least, and for all humanity generally, regardless of their belief. Love is necessary for the survival of the human race; faith and faithfulness are necessary for salvation; hope is necessary for our security in the faith and our strength to love one another. All other arguments pale in comparison to the power and testimony of faith, hope, and love.
Of course, this list is nowhere close to exhaustive, but I pray that it gets you, the reader, thinking about what you believe about Scripture and the testimony you bear as Christ-followers. Peace to all!
My thoughts are my own, and annotated when borrowed from elsewhere.
NOTE: If you have some other Scriptures you’d like to add on the reliability of God’s word, feel free to add them in the Comments section. I’d love to hear from you!
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.
Setting and Context
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.
Parallel Structure of 1 Timothy 2
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
“Women” Generally in 1 Timothy 2 and 3
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 Addresses Church Leadership (2:11–12)
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.
“Saved Through Childbearing” (vv. 13–15) Reconsidered
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?
Conclusion
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.
[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.
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.
I’m in the midst of a few weeks off from preaching, so I’ve had some time to reflect on the past 14 months of preaching through the Lectionary/Liturgical Calendar[1] at the behest of my childhood home church, Mt. View Presbyterian in Omaha. At the beginning of 2022, they had asked me to follow the Revised Common Lectionary, because that makes it easy for their small church to plan out bulletins and coordinate with other guest preachers.
It’s kind of like being back in seminary, having a different assignment due every two weeks or so, and because I’m not afraid of any challenge when it comes to preaching the Bible, I wholeheartedly agreed. I will admit as well that it’s beneficial to me, because I don’t have to think about topics in advance. Lincoln (IL) Christian Seminary taught me some great skills when it comes to hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) and homiletics (the skills for preaching), so I already know how to go through the motions to prepare.
Although I was raised in the Presbyterian faith and went through my church’s confirmation process, not much of that stuck as a sixth grader (or however old I was at the time). By the time I got to high school, I had begun to form my own ideas about my faith, and I started to look for something that was grounded more directly in Scripture and less reliant on the “traditions of men.” I found that home in the Restoration Movement (independent Christian Church) when I went to college.
The Restoration Movement traces its roots to the frontier Midwest (Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio areas) where a group of preachers decided the best way to “do” church was to primarily stick to what the Bible said and not make manmade creeds or religious rules a test of faith or fidelity. “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible”; “Where Scripture speaks, we speak; where they are silent there’s freedom” or “we’re silent.” Accordingly, things like the Liturgical Calendar or traditional Holy Days were downplayed, unless there was biblical precedent (e.g., the birth of Christ announced by angels). Historically, we’ve operated under the principle that the operations of God’s grace are not dictated by the Liturgical Calendar or any other calendar.
The operations of God’s grace are not dictated by the Liturgical Calendar or any other calendar.
While I still generally operate under that principle, I have come to discover the biblical underpinnings of many of the Holy Days or Seasons. In addition to that, I have come to see how important some of these traditions are to the Mt. View congregation as currently constituted. I have been refreshed and uplifted in my faith in God and my knowledge of his word by the work I’ve had to do to prepare messages based on the Lectionary readings for a particular Sunday. As such, I want to take the opportunity of this article to share what I’ve discovered about some of the lesser-known Holy Days and Seasons, at least among those in the Restoration Movement tradition, and perhaps encourage my brothers and sisters in the Restoration Movement to consider a more intentional approach to them.
Advent: Preparing for the Coming Messiah
As with most things, it’s best to start at the beginning, so I want to take a look at Advent first. The Lectionary cycles through three years (Years A, B, and C) of readings, and Advent marks the beginning of the new liturgical year.[2] As you might imagine, Advent is the most familiar to me. I have fond memories of getting the Advent calendars with chocolate or other goodies in them (maybe even a Bible verse?) and especially of lighting the Advent candles in church service with my family. I know our family got to do it at least one Advent Sunday when I was growing up.
What I had forgotten was that each Sunday in Advent had its own special theme. This may vary among the traditions, but the four common themes are usually Hope, Peace, Joy, and Love. For Advent 2022 (Year A of the new cycle), the OT passages focused on Isaiah.[3] What I find interesting is that many of these passages could have dual fulfillment, referring both to the first coming of the Messiah and the second coming of the Messiah. For example, Isaiah 2:3 (Year A, first Sunday) mentions going to the temple where God will teach his ways, while 2:4 speaks of beating swords into plowshares, which is typically associated with the second coming.
Isaiah 11:1–2 (second Sunday) speaks of Jesus as the one upon whom the Spirit of the Lord will rest, while 11:4 says “He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth.” Isaiah 35 (third Sunday) appears to reference much of Jesus’s healing ministry, but vs. 4 speaks God coming with vengeance. Isaiah 7:14 (fourth Sunday) is the prophecy Matthew quotes about the virgin birth of Christ, even though it has a partial fulfillment in the immediate chapters of Isaiah following that. Isaiah 9 (“For unto us a Child is born”) is the annual passage for Christmas Eve service.
It’s easy to see, then, why many of the Jews at the time of Jesus’s ministry were looking for a Messiah that would overthrow Roman rule. This led me to an important realization: God’s people have never lived in a time where they had no expectation of a coming Messiah, except perhaps for those who were close to the Messiah during his earthly ministry. Even though scholars are fairly certain that Jesus was not born in the month of December, the celebration of Advent along with Christmas not only as a retrospective on Jesus’s birth and first coming and all the heavenly fanfare that went along with that, but also as a prospective look at the second coming of Christ is still highly relevant to Christians today, especially in our current culture and climate.
God’s people have never lived in a time where they had no expectation of a coming Messiah.
Epiphany
I recently posted my Epiphany message, A Pastor’s Epiphany About Epiphany (Matthew 2:1–12; Isaiah 60:1–6; Psalm 72), so I won’t say too much about that here. The title pretty much sums it up. Epiphany focuses on the visit of the magi to Jesus, which, if you read the Gospel account closely, seems to come a few days after the birth of Christ (historically 12 days after, but there’s no biblical text to suggest that time frame); Jesus’s family was in a house by that time. Focusing on the Isaiah passage here, which is the same every year in the Lectionary, reveals some interesting clues to where the magi came from.
As I was preparing the Epiphany message, I realized that I’d never really heard anyone in the Restoration Movement talk about where these magi had come from. That seemed pretty odd to me given that we’re supposed to focus on examining the Scriptures to figure out the truth. I’d heard about David Longnecker’s Mystery of the Magi in a news report. The book gives a detailed analysis of where these magi may have lived and what their connection was to Jewish history and prophecy. As it turns out, these magi were probably not from Persia, because Persia was in decline at the time. Rather, they were probably from some diaspora Jews that never made it to Babylon and settled in communities east of the Jordan river and Dead Sea, and perhaps as far south as Midian. They were known as Nabateans. They would have had a more intimate knowledge of Messianic prophecy and seem to fit the demographic and economic descriptions in the Isaiah 60 passage, as I explain in my message. Isaiah 60:1 may refer to the star they followed; they were at the crossroads of several prominent trade routes; and “Nebaioth” is mentioned, which may well be the root of the name of the Nabateans.
If there’s any application to this knowledge, I think it’s that we need to learn to recognize the signs of the times to anticipate the second coming of Christ, which ties in to the secondary theme of Advent. The Nabateans appear to have been diligently searching the skies and paying attention to the signs, because they did not want to miss the coming of the Messiah they had hoped for as well.
“Jesus would probably laugh at us for giving up things like chocolate, beer, coffee…all the things that actually bring us joy and make us happy.”
Lent
In the past couple weeks since Lent began, I’ve had one friend ask whether I observe Ash Wednesday, and another ask me what I thought about a Facebook post about one person’s unique take on Lent. Here’s a quote cited in the post from a priest he’d heard:
“Jesus would probably laugh at us for giving up things like chocolate, beer, coffee…all the things that actually bring us joy and make us happy.
What He might suggest is giving up the things that make us miserable in God’s Paradise.
Things like self doubt, insecurities, jealousy, greed, and gossip and anger.
The things that move us away from The Light.
Honor His sacrifice by giving up The Darkness in your Life.”
Now I’ve never given up anything for Lent, because I don’t observe it. And I’ve never had ashes placed on my forehead to initiate a Lenten fast. But I thought what this priest he’s quoting said made a lot of sense. But here’s where my initial principle comes into play: the operation of God’s grace isn’t limited to a calendar or a season. Shouldn’t we always be giving up the darkness in our lives so we can more fully know God? That’s a good way to live to be sure, and I commend anyone who can do that, but if it’s something we should give up permanently, then is it really a fast? Is it really a sacrifice to give up something that’s bad for us?
Before I even looked at the Lectionary for what passage is assigned for Lent, I knew Isaiah 58 was really the best definition of fasting we have in the Bible. As it turns out, that is the evergreen passage for Lent. The problem as I see it with concept of Lent as a personal fast is that it is somewhat self-centered. Sure, the presumed motivation is to get closer to God, but how does giving up a food item or certain activity actually accomplish that? And again, if it’s something that you know is bad for you anyway, why do you need the backdrop of a religious Holy Season to accomplish it?
If we look at Isaiah’s description of fasting, though, there’s really nothing selfish about how it should be. There’s no talk of personal sacrifice or personal wellbeing. In fact, Isaiah (58:5) scolds his readers for thinking of fasting in just such a way:
Isaiah then goes on to describe what the Lord expects from our fasting, and there’s nothing selfish about it, except that when we do the hard things, then we have a reward waiting for us. What are the hard things (vv. 6–7, 9b–10a)?
Loose the chains of injustice
Untie the cords of the yoke
Set the oppressed free and satisfy their needs
Break every yoke
Share your food with the hungry by spending yourself on their behalf
Provide the poor wanderer with shelter
Clothe the naked
Not turn away from our own flesh and blood
Do away with the blame game and malicious talk
What are the resulting rewards? They’re commensurate with the degree to which we work toward accomplishing the hard stuff! This isn’t legalism, though. This is what it means to show our faith by what we do, not just by what we say. We talk the talk AND walk the walk. Integrity.
Your light will break forth like the dawn
Your healing will appear quickly
Your righteousness will go before you
The glory of the LORD will be your rear guard
You will call, and the LORD will answer
You will cry for help, and he will be there for you
Your light will rise in the darkness, like the noonday sun
The LORD will always guide you, satisfy you, and strengthen you.
And so on and so on and so on.
In the Old Testament, most references to fasting are about a community fasting, not individuals. When it occurs in the books of pre-exilic history, it often refers to a prebattle ritual. David fasted for his first child with Bathsheba, but to no avail. In the post-exilic history, fasting is mentioned in connection with restoring Jerusalem to a semblance of its pre-exilic state (e.g., compare Isaiah 58:12 to Isaiah 61:4). In the New Testament, most references to fasting are about what to do when you fast. There’s very little mention of its purpose, although the reference to John’s disciples fasting most likely indicates they were waiting for the Messiah.
In the Old Testament, most references to fasting are about a community fasting, not individuals.
Above, I made a parenthetical reference to Isaiah 61 with respect to rebuilding ancient ruins. Nehemiah fasted before taking on the project to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. But do you know what else is significant about Isaiah 61? That is the passage Jesus uses for his own ministry in Luke’s account, immediately after Jesus spends 40 days fasting in the wilderness. His words sound very much like the purpose of fasting in Isaiah 58. Jesus fasted for 40 days in the wilderness because he knew he had big things, Isaiah 58 big things, to accomplish in his ministry, so he did it right. Check out Isaiah 61:1–3a and see if that doesn’t sound a lot like Isaiah 58:
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.[5]
So fasting is for the big things; the big decisions. The Gospels do hint that fasting had taken on a more individual application in some cases, but I don’t think its purpose, as outlined in Isaiah 58, was ever diminished. Jesus set the standard for fasting. Another interesting aspect of fasting in the NT: it’s never mentioned after Acts, and only twice in Acts 13:2–3 around a decision about whom to send out to the Gentiles.
The application for the modern church seems clear, then. While there does seem to be something to be gained by fasting personally, the more important goal the Scriptures (and Jesus) have in fasting is justice, especially for the poor and oppressed. The Scriptures also seem clear, both in the OT and especially with John’s disciples in the NT, that corporate fasting is much more powerful and effective in God’s kingdom economy.
Conclusion (for now)
This post is already pretty long, so I’ll forego discussing Easter through Passover, which makes up the last of the Holy Seasons in the Liturgical Calendar. The rest of the Sundays in the Liturgical Calendar after Passover are identified as “Propers,” 29 of them for the remainder of 2023. That seems kind of unusual to me to have the major church Holy Days packed into five months of the year. Do we need 22 weeks a year to get ready for the other 30 weeks? Is the liturgical year intended to be a microcosm of the Christian life: we educate ourselves about who Christ is and what he’s done for us early on so that we can walk faithfully for the rest of our lives?
I’d love to hear your stories about how these Holy Days or Holy Seasons have impacted you. As I said before, I’d never really given them much thought until this last year, so I’ve tried to look at them from an outsider’s perspective, since I have little to no historical experience with these things. I do hope my brothers and sisters in the Restoration Movement will consider my words here and how they can present these Holy Days and Seasons in a fresh new way to reach those who may have lost their way for whatever reasons. I think the body of Christ will benefit greatly if we can discover a new appreciation for the Liturgical Calendar.
My opinions are my own.
Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.
[1] The Liturgical Calendar is the order of the Holy Days and Seasons. The Lectionary represents the assigned Scripture texts for each day that are used in the worship service or as the basis for the message on any given day of the Liturgical Calendar. My focus here is primarily on those events that happen on Sundays.
[2] The new liturgical year formally begins on the Thursday before the first Sunday in Advent. This is usually the last Thursday of November, so this is typically Thanksgiving Day, unless November has five Thursdays.
[3] For some Holy Days, the passages are different from year to year in the cycle, but are the same in the respective years of each cycle. So year A has the same passages for Advent in 2019, 2022, 2025, etc.; Year B for 2020, 2023, 2026, etc.. For other Holy Days, Epiphany and Lent, for example, the passages are the same for all three years in the cycle and thus across all cycles.
[4]The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[5]The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
I preached this message on January 8, 2023, the first Sunday after Epiphany (January 6), at Mt. View Presbyterian Church in Omaha. As I say in my message, I had never really given much thought to this “Holy Day,” because the brotherhood I’m associated with today doesn’t typically do anything special with any Holy Days except Christmas and Easter. There may be a divine component as to why I’m posting this almost two months after preaching the message. I was recently drawn into a couple conversations on Lent and Ash Wednesday by friends who are from a Catholic and another mainline Protestant tradition, respectively, and together, the Holy Spirit has been using these experiences to prompt me to take a fresh look at these Holy Days that I had dismissed out-of-hand as traditions of man. Look for another blog post soon on what my thought process has been in that regard. The message is lightly edited for publication.
Historical Background
Epiphany. As English words go, it’s kind of a funny sounding word, don’t you think? When I hear that “piff” sound in the word, it reminds me of the sound I make when I think something is too easy for me. For those outside of mainline denominations, if they know the word at all, it probably doesn’t have any sort of religious or Christian meaning for them: when someone says, “I had an epiphany,” they’re not talking about a cheeseburger from Dinker’s, although that could be a close comparison for burger lovers. Anybody hungry now? In that sense of the word, an epiphany moment is when you see the light, discover your purpose, or understand clearly what action you must take to set your life on a better and more prosperous path.
But for those of us in the Western church, the “Epiphany,” theeeee “Epiphany” is not just some moment you have internally, but it’s a series of events surrounding one person, Jesus Christ, that has impact on the whole human race eternally. It is the short period of time surrounding the birth of Jesus where not only is he revealed as God’s Messiah to the shepherds in the fields, but also to the Magi from the East, wherever that may have been. Now when we were kids and did the Christmas nativity scene in the front of the sanctuary, the Magi were always there with the shepherds. Did you notice in Matthew’s text where the Magi encountered Jesus: it wasn’t in the manger; it was in a house! More on that later. First, I want to look a little bit at the word itself.
Now as I’ve grown and matured as a Christian and a preacher, I’ve come to adopt the view that I should call Bible things by Bible names, where practical, so that when I talk about something biblical, I can point to the Bible and say: “Here it is.” But sometimes we use words that aren’t in the Bible, at least, not in our English translations, to summarize biblical concepts. “Trinity” is one of those words that isn’t in the Bible, but the Bible is pretty clear about the triune relationship among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Word Study on ἐπιφαίνω (epiphainō)
Similarly, the word “Epiphany” is not found in the text of our English translations, but the word is simply borrowed from a family of words we have in the Greek version of the Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. It is an intensified form of a word that means “appear” or “make known.” Half of its uses in the OT Greek text are found in the phrase “make your face shine upon us” (Numbers 6:25 and several passages in the Psalms), and a few other uses refer to God revealing himself to someone.
In the NT, the noun is used 5 times in 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus to refer to either the first or second “appearing” of the Savior. The verb is used by Zechariah in his song of praise in Luke 1 to refer to Mary’s child as “the rising sun [who] will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness.” It’s also used twice in Titus to refer to “the grace of God” and “the kindness and love of God our Savior” appearing.
Now the thing that makes this an “intensified” word, that is, to use the Greek, an EPIphainō and not just a phainō, is the nature of what was revealed. This is where the Magi come in. Historically, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the term was first used of a church feast on January 6 in the Eastern church in the third century, and originally focused on the baptism of Jesus, where the Holy Spirit descended like a dove on him and God said, “This is my beloved Son, with him I am well pleased.” To this day, the Eastern Orthodox church still focuses on the baptism of Christ on Epiphany. However, when the Western church adopted the Holy Day, they switched the focus to the visit of the Magi, whose gifts revealed that Jesus was the Son of God, the expected heir of David’s throne, the Messiah. It wasn’t until the 20th century that the Western (i.e., Roman Catholic) church separated out the celebration of the baptism of Christ to the first Sunday after Epiphany, which happens to be today according to the Lectionary we follow here!
Background of the Magi
So who were these Magi and where did they come from? Why did they have such a profound interest in identifying “his star” and following it to find the king? How would they even know about such a star? Was it prophesied somewhere, or was it just some oral tradition that had circulated through the Middle East for centuries?
As it turns out, there are a couple prophecies from the Old Testament that seem to refer to the star, the Magi or kings who would bring gifts, and where they come from. The two OT passages identified every year in the lectionary for January 6, Epiphany, are Isaiah 60 and Psalm 72, the latter of which we already read this morning. We’ll come back to those in a moment. Traditionally, for hundreds of years, we’ve believed that these Magi from the East came from Persia, the region of modern-day Iran and Iraq. It’s true that Magi, or wise men, were well respected and wielded a great deal of political power in their heyday, especially as we see in the book of Daniel.
But in the excellent book called Mystery of the Magi by Dwight Longenecker, the author pulls together the history of the Persian Magi from several sources and shows that, by the time of Jesus’s birth, these Magi had lost most of their political power and influence after Alexander the Great conquered their territory and up through the time the Parthians had wrested control from Alexander’s successors. At the time of Christ’s birth, then, the Persian magi had become marginalized to the point of near exile and poverty, and their political ties to the Roman Empire were on such shaky ground that they would not have had the resources or the political influence to make such a trip to see the newborn king, let alone bring gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
Enter the Nabateans. The Nabateans were an up-and-coming nation that inhabited the territory east of the Jordan River, from as far north as Damascus and as far south as the Arabian peninsula, including Midian and perhaps even modern-day Yemen. One of their most prominent cities was Petra, you know, that city with “Treasury” carved out of the side of a cliff. They had begun to come into prominence after the Jews were exiled to Babylon. In fact, many of the Jews who were exiled probably never made it to Babylon, because according to historians, there were several Jewish colonies scattered throughout the region the Nabateans controlled, and several made their way to these colonies instead. These exiles most likely included priests who would have brought with them the knowledge of the prophets, psalms, and Torah to lead their brethren in worship.
By the time of Jesus’s birth, the Nabateans controlled many of the trade routes between Persia and the Mediterranean. As such, they had wealth and access to abundant supplies of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, not to mention some pretty slick technology to capture and provide water for their survival in the desert regions where they lived. Longenecker believes these Magi came from Nabatea, and they would have had a deep understanding of Jewish prophecies, because they had strong ancestral ties to the Jews and strong religious ties to the Temple.
Prophetic Background for Epiphany
Having laid out this background, then, I want us to look first at Isaiah 60 to see why they mention following a star to find the Messiah. Listen to verses 1 through 3:
Doesn’t that sound kind of like a star rising? And what about “his glory appears over you”? Kind of sounds like Matthew’s description of the Magi coming to where the star “stopped over the place where the child was.” Where was this place? According to Isaiah 60:14, it is “the City of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.” Where were Mary, Joseph, and Jesus? Well according to Matthew, by the time the Magi found him, they were in a house, not a stable. It’s not clear whether they were still in Bethlehem and where the star was in relation to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, but the context seems to suggest they were in or close to Bethlehem, because the area around Bethlehem was where Herod had the children under 2 killed. As such, I think it’s a fair assumption that this is at least the primary prophecy these Nabatean Magi had in mind. But let’s look a little further to be sure (vv. 4–5).
In Matthew’s story, we don’t have a count of how many Magi came to see Jesus. Again, tradition tries to fill in the gap by assigning one Magus to each gift. We know a bunch of shepherds had come to see baby Jesus in the manger, at the prompting of a “heavenly host” that hovered over them. If the Nabatean Magi thought this was such an important event, wouldn’t more than three of them have come? This would have been a pretty big deal for all of them! Add to that the Nabateans’ profitable trade industry, and you can see the connection to the “wealth on the seas” and the “riches of the nations” that could be brought to Israel.
Finally, vs. 6 names several cities that would have been in Nabatea, and vs. 7 mentions “the rams of Nebaioth.” Because the Nabateans do not have any surviving written documents we’re aware of, some have speculated that “Nebaioth” is actually the kingdom of the Nabateans. Verse 6 even mentions that “All those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense.”[3] At the time, the only source of frankincense known was in Sheba in southern Arabia and Somaliland in Africa.
So it seems pretty clear that Isaiah 60 was in fact one of the prophecies these Magi looked forward to, not just because it predicted the coming of the Messiah, but because the Nabateans recognized that they had a role to fulfill in that prophecy.
Psalm 72 sounds quite a bit like Isaiah 61, the prophecy Jesus read about himself the first time we see him speaking in the synagogue, especially the parts about defending the afflicted, crushing the oppressor, delivering the needy, and rescuing the poor from oppression and violence. Note that vs. 10 also mentions Sheba twice in reference to bringing gifts and gold “kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts.” Given all this, it seems highly likely to me that these Magi were important rulers among the Nabateans, both religious and political, and that they had an intimate and rich connection to Jewish religion, culture, and ancestry.
What Epiphany Means for Us
So this is a lot of information here this morning, but what does it mean for us today? The gifts brought by the Magi were not randomly chosen. As we saw in the Isaiah and Psalms passages, they were “planned” long before Christ was born, and these Magi knew that. Gold was brought as a tribute to a king. Today, of course, many of us give of our resources to the church or other organizations that help the needy. We use that money to share the good news of Jesus and the gospel with those who need hope. It reminds me of the parable of the hidden treasure in Matthew 13:44: When the man found the treasure, he sold all that he had to buy the field it was in. The gift of gold is an easy one to figure out for us. My guess is, Mary and Joseph may have used some of that gold when they had to flee to Egypt to provide for their own needs in that short exile.
The gift of frankincense applies to us at a deeper level, the level of the heart. Frankincense was used in the worship ceremonies in the Tabernacle in the wilderness and in the temple in Jerusalem. The rarity of frankincense, along with its pleasing aroma, is what makes it valuable. I think it’s a fair jump, then, to suggest that it can also represent our own individual uniqueness in what we ourselves have to offer to God in worship. Worship is not just a ceremony or a ritual we perform on a regular basis. Worship comes from the root word “worth,” and we show we consider Christ worthy by offering the whole of our uniqueness to him and his service. Perhaps the apostle Paul had this in mind when he wrote in 2 Corinthians 2:14–15: “But thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ’s triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.[4]”
Finally, myrrh was used in part to ease severe pain, and also to prepare the body for the grave in that day. On the cross, Jesus was also offered wine mixed with myrrh, but according to Mark’s gospel, he refused it. Myrrh, then, can remind us that each of us must make ourselves ready for that day when we meet our Savior face to face in heaven, and are welcomed into our eternal home.
It occurs to me that Epiphany, then, is really a microcosm of the whole Christian experience. We celebrate the birth and revealing of Jesus as the Messiah, the dedication of our lives to him in worship, and the hope of eternal life that he purchased for us in his death and resurrection. And I have to say, preparing this message has been an “epiphany” for me. As a kid growing up in this church, I never thought much about Epiphany. I guess I was still too pumped up on the adrenaline I got from all my Christmas gifts to concern myself with the gifts presented to Jesus. As an adult, I never forgot my Presbyterian roots, but I had found a spiritual home among a brotherhood that had its own roots in Scottish Presbyterianism, but who didn’t have a separate recognition of this tradition—it was all wrapped up with Christmas. I never had a class in seminary about the traditions and what they signified in the “mainline” denominations.
So once again, I’ll say thank you for allowing me to share with you, and thank you for asking that I follow the Lectionary. I hope and pray our time together this morning has been as enlightening to you as it has been for me this week. Peace to you all. Amen.
Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.
[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.
[4]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.
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;
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.
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:
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.
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.
Sunday Morning Greek Blog 