Sunday Morning Greek Blog

April 10, 2011

Turning, Returning, and Repenting

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Luke Gospel of,New Testament,Repentance — Scott Stocking @ 8:26 am

As I have been reading through Luke 3–9, I have noticed the repetition of words I have not seen or noticed before in the other Gospels. This is not unusual. I blogged earlier about Mark’s use of the word εὐθύς (euthus /yoo THOOS/ ‘immediately’), which occurs more than 40 times in his Gospel. Luke uses the word only once as an adverb, but he chose another word that he uses almost exclusively, παραχρῆμα (parachrēma /pah rah CHRAY mah/), to mean the same thing. Of the 18 occurrences of this word, 16 appear in Luke-Acts, with the other two found in Matthew 2:19–20. So Luke’s emphasis on immediacy is not quite as strong as Mark’s, but significant nonetheless.

Another word that kept popping up over and over again was the word Luke uses (again almost exclusively) for “return,” ὑποστρέφω (hypostrephō /hoo po STREH foe/). By itself, the word is not spectacular in any way. Every time Luke uses the word in Luke-Acts (32 times of 35 total occurrences of the word in the NT), it refers to actual physical movement from one place to another. Only Peter, in 2 Peter 2:21, uses the word in a figurative sense, and that negatively, referring to those who “turn their backs on the sacred command.” Keep that in mind, because this passage becomes important a little later in this discussion. The word is only used three times of Jesus returning; most of the other occurrences refer to people returning home, returning to Jerusalem, or returning to Jesus to give a report or to give thanks. Again, nothing spectacular in any of this, but it does suggest that Jesus and his followers never sat still for too long and that there was a lot of activity around him.

This has something to say about what the ministry of local congregations should look like. Congregations that are buzzing with activity through the week, whether in the church building, in the homes of its members, or in popular meeting places like Panera’s or Starbuck’s, are making a difference in the lives of people. In Luke 9:10, the Gospel writer records that the 12 apostles (as long as we’re talking about frequently used words, the number “12” occurs 6 times in Luke 8–9 referring to 4 different entities) “returned and reported to [Jesus] what they had done.” I’m getting ahead of my reading schedule a bit by citing this next verse, but it reflects the same principle: In Luke 10:17, when the 72 return from their mission (similar to the mission of the 12), they report to Jesus that “the demons obeyed us in your name.” What would Sunday morning or small group be like if, each time we returned, we told what the Lord was doing in and through us? What would the dynamic of your small group look like if you not only did a Bible study, but just shared about the great things God is doing for you? Our congregation occasionally shows video testimonies of how God is working in the lives of his people. That has had a powerful impact on those seekers who are looking for a meaningful connection to the body of Christ. So when you return to church or small group or Sunday school class each week, share something good that God has been doing in your life, not just the prayer requests for your concerns.

The beautiful thing about doing word studies like this is that one can make many serendipitous discoveries along the way. One of the questions I asked myself as I began looking at ὑποστρέφω was, “What other words are used for ‘return’ in the NT?” I checked Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Dictionary Based on Semantic Domains for all the Greek words that carry the idea of “return” in their use in the NT. I found a handful of words that, in a few instances, carried the same idea as ὑποστρέφω and together occurred fewer times in the NT than ὑποστρέφω. But one related word stood out, ἑπιστρέφω (epistrephō /eh pee STREH foe/ ‘turn’, ‘return’, ‘turn back to’). Half of the 36 occurrences of this word in the NT are found in Luke-Acts (he does like to corner the market on word usage!). Of those 36 occurrences, 21 of them refer to “repentance” and turning to God, or in a couple cases just the opposite, turning back to the ways of the world. Of Luke’s 18 uses of the word, 12 (there’s that number 12 again!) have the sense of turning or returning to the Lord, often with the idea of repentance present in the immediate context. I mentioned the lone figurative use of ὑποστρέφω in 2 Peter 2:21 above. One of the negative uses of ἑπιστρέφω follows on the heels of that in 2 Peter 2:22, where Peter quotes Proverbs 26:11: “A dog returns to its vomit.” This exemplifies the acts of negative repentance to which the word refers (see also Galatians 4:9).

So how do I tie this all together? Simple. When we return (ὑποστρέφω) to church or small group each week, let’s tell others about the great things God is doing for us, so the world will see that we don’t just come to have needs met and prayers answered. When the world sees that dynamic relationship that we have with God, and that a relationship with him can be about more than just having needs met, they will return (ἑπιστρέφω) to God and join in the great kingdom experience. How much more vibrant would our service and worship be if we adopt this attitude! And in keeping with the sense of παραχρῆμα, let’s not waste any time getting it done!

Εἰρήνη! (Peace!)

March 30, 2011

Opening the Womb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace!

March 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Tidbits from the Crucifixion Stories

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

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

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

Peace!

March 13, 2011

Thieves, Robbers, or Rebels?

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Mark Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 8:43 am

About a year ago, I had the privilege to edit (and read, of course) the fiction novel The Butane Gospel by Michael Hinkle. The main character in the story, redneck trucker Leon Butane, finds himself on a life-or-death mission after his own near-death experience to discover the names of the two men crucified with Jesus. As Hinkle himself described the story, it is a cross between The Big Lebowski and The DaVinci Code. What captured my interest in the story was one of the underlying questions Butane and his associates had to answer: Were the two men crucified with Jesus simple thieves, or were they rebels? I’ll let you read the book for yourselves to find out how Hinkle resolves the issue.

I was reminded of this question this week as I read Mark 11. Mark 11:15–19 records the story of Jesus cleansing the temple (parallel passages are Matthew 21:12–17; Luke 19:45–48; and John 2:13–22). In the three synoptic Gospels, all authors record Jesus’ reference to Jeremiah 7:11, which in the TNIV reads: “Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you?” (All Scripture citations are from Logos 4.0 versions of the references, unless I indicate I have used my own translation.)

At issue here is the word translated “robber” in a majority of the English translations, both in Jeremiah 7:11 (Hebrew: פָּרִיץ pārîṣ, ‘violent one’, from the verb פָּרַץ pāraṣ, break (through, down, over), burst [TWOT 1826]) and Mark 11:17 and synoptic parallels (λῃστής lēstēs, ‘robber’, ‘rebel’, ‘highwayman’; also used in the LXX translation of Jeremiah 7:11). For both the Hebrew and Greek words, “robber” is an appropriate translation, but it only has a real impact on those who understand the legal, technical difference between a “robber” and “thief” (in Greek, the latter is translated from κλέπτης kleptēs, used 16 times in the NT). A robber uses violent force against a person to take something, while a thief does not.

In Nehemiah, the Hebrew word is used to contrast the efforts of those rebuilding the wall. The enemies of the Jews wanted to level and break down the walls, as indicated by the verb definition above. In other places in the Hebrew text, the word has much more violent overtones. In Isaiah 35:9, the word refers to “ravenous” beasts. In Ezekiel 7:22, it refers to those who would desecrate the temple (the TNIV uses “robbers” there as well). In Psalm 17:4, it is used in parallel with those who bribe, an action always associated with violence in the OT. And in Daniel 11:14, the word is used of those “violent” ones who would rebel against the divine visions.

The use of the Greek word lēstēs in the LXX and NT has similar connotations. The translation “highwayman” above can be aptly illustrated in the character of Vizzini in The Princess Bride. Although comic and eventually benign, his character represents the kind of violence implied by lēstēs. Luke (10:30, 36) uses the word to describe the bandits who robbed and beat the man in the story of the Good Samaritan. John (10:1, 8) uses the word to describe those who break into the sheepfold. He also uses the word of Barabbas in 18:40. Interestingly, Matthew identifies Barabbas as “Jesus Barabbas” in 27:16–17, although “Jesus” is an uncertain variant in both places and not well attested in the most prominent manuscripts.

Another place where we find the Greek word used is in the Garden of Gethsemane when the soldiers come to arrest Jesus. The three synoptic writers (Matthew 26:55; Mark 14:48; Luke 22:52) all have Jesus asking a question (my translation): “You come after me as rebel?” Note that in those contexts, the arresting party brings clubs and swords, thinking Jesus to be a violent man. (Did some have him confused with Jesus Barabbas? I’m not sure that is plausible.) In Matthew, Jesus admonishes them, saying that he sat in the temple courts teaching every day. But I have to ask a question at this point: Was Jesus’ temple outburst, just though it may have been, the watershed event that led to his arrest and crucifixion? And if so, is it possible that the two men crucified with Jesus (whom Matthew and Mark identify as lēstoi; Luke has κακοῦργοι kakourgoi, lit. ‘workers of bad’) were not criminals, but men who had “zeal for God’s house” (John 2:17, quoting Psalm 69:9) comparable to that of Jesus? Had they jumped on the bandwagon when Jesus started overturning the tables of the moneychangers? Or had they just taken advantage of the general upheaval caused by Jesus and done their own plundering? (I must here give credit to Hinkle’s The Butane Gospel for bringing these questions to the forefront, but my conclusions are slightly different from those of the characters in his book.)

It should be noted that when Jesus overturned the moneychangers’ tables, he did not actually steal any of the goods for himself, so technically, he could not be classified as a lēstēs.

I find it significant, then, that lēstēs, used only 15 times in the NT, is found 10 times total in the three stories of the temple cleansing, arrest, and crucifixion. The word seems to tie these stories together, not to portray Jesus as a lēstēs, but to acquit him of the charge and thus defend his innocence as the Lamb of God.

4Surely he took up our pain

and bore our suffering

yet we considered him punished by God,

stricken by him, and afflicted.

5But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was on him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

6We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

each of us has turned to our own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed and afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,

so he did not open his mouth (Isaiah 53:4–7, TNIV).

March 6, 2011

Feeding, Walking, and Transfiguring

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Mark Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 2:02 pm

Mark’s versions of the feedings of the 5000 men plus women and children (Mark 6:30–44) and 4000 men plus women and children (Mark 8:1–10) proved to have some interesting “grist for my mill,” as one of my college professors used to say. Mark has a couple interesting features not found in Matthew’s account. One minor difference I noted is that in Mark 6:39, Jesus commands the crowd to sit down on the “green grass” (χλωρος χόρτος chlōros chortos), while Matthew just has them sitting down on the grass (in Mark 8, they sit on the ground, γή gē). The disciples make a point that they are in a “wilderness” or “remote place” (ἔρημος ὁ τόπος erēmos ho topos). Often, we may have an image of the region as a dry desert, but not so here. This seemed to be a very verdant place where it would have been quite comfortable to sit for some time.

The other implication here is that while Jesus was teaching, the crowd apparently was standing. Otherwise, why would he instruct them to sit down? But this command is qualified by another part of the story unique to Mark: in 6:38–39, Jesus instructs the crowd to sit down in “groups [by] groups,” and they sat down in “blocks [by] blocks]” of fifty and one hundred each. Those of you who know the Exodus story might recognize that this is how Jethro instructed his son-in-law Moses to divide the responsibility of judging the people in Exodus 18. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. How do you feed a hungry crowd? One group at a time. Jesus was reiterating Moses’ crowd management philosophy.

Not only does Mark’s account look back to the Exodus story, but it also looks forward to the Last Supper (as all of the Gospel accounts of the feeding of the masses do). In chapter 6, Jesus blesses (ευλογέω eulogeō) and breaks in pieces (κατακλάω kataklaō) the bread. In chapter 8, Jesus gives thanks for (εὐχαριστεω eucharisteō) and breaks (κλάω klaō) the bread. In Mark 14:22–23, Jesus blesses and breaks the bread and gives thanks for the cup.

If you’ve been going to church for a while and have been paying attention to the preacher, you may have already heard this next feature of the story, common to all Gospel accounts. The baskets used to collect the leftovers are not the same in each story. In the feeding of the 5000, the twelve baskets are more like lunch or grocery baskets (κοφίνος kophinos), while in Mark 8, the seven baskets there are large enough to hold a man (see Acts 9:25). Scholars are fairly certain that the seven larger baskets held more than the twelve smaller baskets. Later, in 8:19–21, after talking about the yeast of the Pharisees, Jesus queries his disciples about the two feeding events: The number of baskets (twelve and seven) may be as significant as the bountiful leftovers. Both numbers are used frequently in the Bible for symbolism: twelve for the number of tribes of Israel and seven for a number of completeness or perfection. After the disciples answer the questions about the number of baskets successfully (again, significant that the numbers stick in their minds), Jesus asks, “Do you still not understand?” What point is he getting across? God’s Word was not meant to be understood by a select few Phrarisees! God’s Word is practical and it satisfies (χορτάζω chortazō; note the similarity of this to the word for “grass”)! God provides! (I think my resistance to tithing at this point in my life may have just gone out the window. I need to pause and reflect on that.)

Okay, done reflecting; still unsettled, but not as much. I must move on from the feeding of the masses, because time always seems to slip away from me while I’m writing this.

By way of transition, I find it interesting, although not surprising for Mark (see earlier posts), that the disciples put out to sea after each of the feeding events. In the first story, Jesus sends his disciples out by themselves, this after the terrifying event of the healing of the Gerasene demoniac, after which the disciples were apparently afraid to go back out on the sea. In Mark 6, we have the story of Jesus walking to them on the water (see another earlier post). Mark is filled with other scary demoniac stories as well, and I think this whole section here (Mark 5–9 at least) is not just about showing Jesus’ power, but about showing Jesus’ need to get away from the crowd for a while. That may be why sailing back and forth across the lake was so popular with Jesus. He could just hang out, maybe cast a line or a net over the side and do some fishing. (Do you suppose Jesus had a bumper sticker on his boat that said, “I’d rather be fishing”?)

Getting away from the crowd had its ultimate expression in the transfiguration story (Mark 9:2–13). Jesus took his “inner circle” (Peter, James, and John) with him up to a mountain, where his glory was revealed, and where he also spoke to Moses and Elijah. Now I don’t know how I would have reacted, but I’d like to think I would have reacted differently than Peter. Here are Moses and Elijah, two of the greatest figures in Jewish history, talking to Jesus, and Peter wants to get out his hammer and nails and make a racket building booths! If I had been there, I think I would have wanted to listen in on the conversation! The story has some connection to Exodus 34:29–35, the radiant face of Moses, which is probably why Peter wanted to build a shelter: Moses was the only one permitted to see the glory of God, and that indirectly, in the innermost part of the tabernacle.

But the story also comes right before the strongest demon that Jesus had yet to face and is a turning point as Mark begins the last half of his Gospel leading up to the parousia. When Jesus returns from the mountain (9:15), he finds his disciples “discussing” (Peter, James, and John do the same kind of “discussing” in 9:10 about Jesus’ prediction that he would rise from the dead; the word is unique to Mark and Luke-Acts) with the Pharisees about a deaf-mute demoniac. The disciples were not strong enough to cast out the demon, and when they later ask why they could not, Jesus tells them that that kind can only come out by prayer. It is interesting, though, that nowhere in the story do we have a direct reference to Jesus praying before he casts out the demon. But Jesus had also just come down from the Mount of Transfiguration, and the people were “astonished” (ἐκθαμβέω ekthambeō, a word found only in Mark—here, of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, and twice in Mark 16 of the women who found the tomb empty) to see him. I take from that that Jesus may have still been glowing a bit, just as Moses did after he left the presence of God. Jesus was fully prepared to take on Satan’s strongest minions. I don’t think it is accidental or coincidental that Mark places these two stories side by side.

Well, that wraps up the post for this morning. Church time approaches, and I have to put the finishing touches on my PowerPoint for my Ephesians Sunday school class. Peace to all!

Scott Stocking

February 27, 2011

Of Crowds, Thorns, and Broadcasting God’s Word

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Mark Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 2:18 pm

Mark is the shortest of all the Gospels, but in the first five chapters, I have found much to unpack. Mark has many repeated exegetically significant words. I have already mentioned the use of εὐθὺς (euthys ‘immediately’) in a previous blog entry, and that occurs another four times in Mark 4:1–20, which I will discuss below.

Another pattern of repeated words I have seen has to do with Jesus’ audience and apparently favorite place of ministry. The word “crowd” (ὄχλος ochlos) appears 38 times, evenly distributed, in the book of Mark. In Mark 1–5, which I read this week, it occurs 13 times. Along with that, the words “sea” or “lake” (θάλασσα thalassa) occurs 19 times in 15 verses in Mark, with 13 occurrences in Mark 1–5; the word “boat” (πλοῖον ploion) appears 17 times in 15 verses in Mark, with 10 occurrences in Mark 1–5. Maybe, just maybe, God is calling me to a seaside ministry. NOT!

I spent much of my ministry career with smaller congregations. I served a couple congregations that had been stuck in the 150–200 range. But most of the congregations I served for any length of time were well under 50. Small may be cozy, comfortable, and easy to manage, but small is not what Jesus was after when he went out to preach. Small is fine for teaching (Jesus often went off with his disciples alone to teach them more thoroughly (e.g., Mark 4:10ff), but he wanted to get God’s word out to as many people as possible.

We’ve been reading The Screwtape Letters in Wednesday night class at my congregation. In chapter VII, Screwtape says this about small churches to his nephew Wormwood: “We [the demons] want the church to be small not only that fewer men may know the Enemy [God] but also that those who do may acquire the uneasy intensity and the defensive self-righteousness of a secret society or a clique.” How many times have I heard that criticism of smaller churches from the world?!?

Before moving back to Omaha, I spent two years in a growing, vibrant congregation whose attendance was about one-third the population of the town. We drove 30 miles to get there, because it was the best thing going in the area for one, and I had known the pastor for several years as well (it was my ex-wife’s home church).

When I moved back to Omaha, I jumped right in to my former congregation. When I attended there in the 80s, attendance was hovering at about 200. When I came back last September, I discovered that my little Timothy church had become a megachurch, averaging 1200 in three services in a new building, and they’re still bursting at the seams (with a new addition on the way). I have experienced first-hand the benefit of being part of the “crowd.” I am seeing lives changed (my own included) daily because a crowded congregation has virtually unlimited resources to get things done and make a powerful impact on its community.

The crowd is great, and the crowd is necessary, but I have also been able to experience the intimacy (without the cliquishness) of a small group setting. I have a wonderful small group that is growing, and I’m part of a great “Men’s Fraternity” group that is helping me reach new levels of spiritual maturity I never thought possible for myself. What a joy to be part of a vibrant community promoting God’s kingdom!

The Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1–20)

One of the “crowd/intimate” stories is the Parable of the Sower and Soils in Mark 4:1–20. Jesus tells the story of the farmer who “broadcasts” his seed (as opposed to carefully planting it in rows) onto four different types of soil: the hard-trodden path, the rocky ground, the thorns, and good, fertile soil.

I find in this passage a description of spiritual warfare, especially as Mark relates it. I mentioned above that the word εὐθύς occurs 4 of 41 times in Mark in this pericope. Its first occurrence is in vs. 5, where Jesus says the seed (i.e., God’s Word) that landed in rocky soil “immediately” dries up, because it had no root. However, when Jesus explains the parable further to his disciples, he uses the word three times in vv. 15–17. Satan “immediately” snatches the Word from the hardened path. By contrast, the person with rocky soil receives the Word “immediately” with joy, but because it has no root in that person’s life, the first sign of trouble causes that person to “immediately” fall away.

The spiritual battle is fierce here: Satan wastes no time trying to choke out the Word of God from our lives. But notice the progression: the greater the chance of the seed getting to some soil, the greater the effort needed to choke out or uproot God’s Word. Notice that in three of the four soils, God’s word starts to take root. But the degree of cultivation determines how well the root takes and how successful its growth will be. Notice that even among the thorns, God’s Word grows, but because of the thorns, it cannot bear fruit.

I think many of us can say that our lives have been represented by each of these types of soils at one point or another. But hopefully we’ve had someone else there to “break up the fallow ground” (Hosea 10:12), clear away the rocks, remove the thorns, and prepare us for not only receiving God’s Word with joy, but allowing it to extend deep roots into our lives, “like a tree planted by streams of water” (Psalm 1:3).

To tie this entry together, let me conclude with this: A large congregation can cast a wide net, bringing in people of all types of soil. But it also has the “saintpower” to counteract the enemy who would try to snatch away God’s Word before it has a chance to take root in someone’s life. The church should be “broadcasting” God’s Word to as many as possible, but we also need the intimacy of close relationships to make sure the Word takes root deeply and produces much fruit.

February 21, 2011

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

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

February 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other notes on Mark 1.

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

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

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

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

Let the Sleeping Saints Arise!

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 6:15 pm

From February 17, 2011.

Just a quick note this morning on a great bit of verbal artistry in Matthew 27:52. The TNIV renders the passage rather blandly, in spite of the miraculous event it records: “The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.” In the Greek, the phrase reads like this: πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν (polla sōmata tōn kekoimēmenōn hagiōn ēgerthēsan), which literally reads, “Many bodies of the sleeping saints were resurrected.” (I think I may have even topped Eugene Peterson’s [The Message] translation of the passage.)

When I read that, I had to stop and revel in the profundity of that phrase. Many of you probably know that the concept of sleeping (here, the verb κοιμάω koimaō ‘sleep’) in the NT is a euphemism for death. And in fact, the people in Matthew 27:52 had been dead, “sleeping” in their tombs. I don’t recall ever seeing that part of the resurrection story depicted in movies about the crucifixion (it’s been a while since I’ve watched any of them, though). This is a phenomenal miracle that gets overlooked by many in light of the admittedly greater importance of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

But here’s the rub. What signification (see my use of that word in my previous note) does the death of Jesus have for you? At the risk of trivializing the miracle of that crucifixion day, I have a question for you (and myself): Are you a “sleeping saint”? Do I need to carry this analogy any further? I leave you to your own musings on this subject.

I’d love to write more, but it’s time to get ready for work. I’d love to hear your comments.

εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (eis aphesin hamartiōn, ‘for the forgiveness of sins’)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Communion/Eucharist,Greek,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 6:09 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

From February 13, 2011.

For centuries, scholars have debated the significance of Jesus’ words in the Gospels’ descriptions of the Lord’s Table, or what other traditions call “communion” or “eucharist.” The four short verses in Matthew have quite a bit to unpack, and I will not be able to do them justice here, but I do want to highlight a few things. The parallel passages are Matthew 26:26–30, Mark 14:22–26; Luke 22:15–20; John 13 has a very different account of that last night with the disciples.

First, Jesus treats the bread and cup differently, at least in Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts. Both of those Gospel writers say that Jesus “blessed” (εὐλογέω, eulogeō) the bread (reminiscent of Matthew 14:19, the feeding of the 5,000), but he “gave thanks” (εὐχαριστέω, eucharisteō) for the cup. Luke says in his account that Jesus “gave thanks” for both.

Second, Jesus does break the bread when he blesses it, and he does say, “This is my body,” but nowhere in any Gospel account does he say, “This is my body, broken for you.” That final phrase is found in some manuscripts (MSS) of the account in 1 Corinthians 11:24, but those MSS do not carry the same historic or epigraphic weight as those that do not have the phrase, so you will not find it in most contemporary English Bibles.

Third, when Jesus takes the cup, Matthew and Luke (Paul follows Luke in 1 Corinthians) have slightly different versions of what Jesus said, but not necessarily contradictory. Matthew records Jesus’ words as, “This is my blood of the covenant.” But that could be rendered a couple different ways depending on how one understands the “my” (μου, mou) in that verse.

In Matthew 16:18, when Jesus says, “I will build my church,” the μου comes before the Greek word translated “church.” So it is possible to render Matthew 26:28 similarly: “This is the blood of my covenant.” In Greek grammar, μου, as genitive pronoun, could also indicate source: “This is the blood from me of the covenant,” anticipating his very next words after that, “which is poured out for many.” However, I think the best explanation, though, is that μου comes between “blood” and “covenant” because it applies to both: “This is my blood of my covenant.”

Luke’s (and Paul’s parallel) account is slightly different, perhaps reflecting the liturgy that had developed among the congregations at the time: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The significance here is that Luke and Paul both make the connection between the covenant and the blood, just as Matthew does.

But finally, I think the most significant aspect of this passage, particularly in Matthew’s account, is the final phrase in Matthew 26:28: εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (eis aphesin hamartiōn, ‘for the forgiveness of sins’). The almost identical phrase is found in Acts 2:38, except it adds the definite article with “sins” along with the possessive pronoun “your”: “Repent, and let each one of you be immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”

The connection between immersion and forgiveness has been downplayed by many. My own background, Independent Christian Church/Church of Christ, has, I think, made the best sense of this verse: The preposition εἰς generally implies motion “into” some place or state of being. Bringing Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3:21 into the mix, I believe we get the full counsel of Scripture on this topic. Here’s the logic as I see it:

  1. John immersed with water for repentance, and Jesus was obedient to that immersion (Matthew 3:11–17).
  2. Jesus says his blood is poured out “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28);
  3. Peter commands the crowd, “Repent and let each one of you be immersed for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38; ties together John’s immersion philosophy and Jesus’ blood);
  4. Paul makes the connection between immersion and the death of Jesus, i.e., the pouring out of his blood at the cross; the water is important as a “signification” of burial (Romans 6:1–10);
  5. Peter says that immersion saves, but by the power of the resurrection, not by the power of the water; the water is still important, because without it, you can’t be immersed (1 Peter 3:21).

So there seems to be trend as you read from Matthew to Revelation to heighten increasingly the significance of immersion. In fact, immersion is a “signification,” not just a symbol, of forgiveness and salvation, not just an optional exercise or an outward show. Everything about immersion in the Scriptures indicates that some inward transformation is occurring. At the very least, it is commanded, so it can’t be optional, regardless of what else you may think of immersion. On the other hand, when the people in Acts understood the significance of immersion, they didn’t hesitate to get it done (e.g., Acts 8:36–38, 9:16, et passim). That should suggest something about how it was presented in the early days of the church.

Some scholars have tried to argue that the phrase in Acts 2:38 should be understood “in reference to the forgiveness of your sins,” implying that immersion is a response to forgiveness already received. I would like to know how those scholars would apply that translation to Matthew 26:28. Do they really want to say Jesus’ shed blood was only “in reference to the forgiveness of sins”? I don’t think even the most stubborn evangelical scholars would want to downplay the blood of Christ to that extent.

Peace!

For further reference, see sense 2 of the meaning of “signification” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.

Careful Christianity (Matthew 23:13-36)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Passion — Scott Stocking @ 5:58 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

From February 6, 2011.

Woe is I is the title of a popular grammar book that deals in a light-hearted manner with the complexities of the English language. More often than not, “woe” is a self-proclamation of the troubles (real or exaggerated) we face in daily life.

But in Matthew 23:13–36, when Jesus pronounced “Woe!” (οὐαὶ, ouai ooh-EYE!) on hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, he was not making a playful jest with them. You can certainly hear the “sound of ultimate suffering” (to quote Inigo Montoya) when you say that word with all the pathos you can muster. His pronouncement of woe was about the severest form of judgment that could be pronounced, short of the ἀνάθεμα (anathema ‘curse’) of 1 Cor 16:22. In my UBS3 dictionary, the translation is given as “1. interjection how horrible it will be! 2. noun horror, disaster, calamity.”

The reason for the woe, however, is what I want to focus on this morning. Other than the repetition of the “woe” phrase, another prominent word appears three times in this text: ἀφίημι (aphiēmi ). The word is a workhorse in the Greek New Testament, appearing 112 times, but having a variety of loosely related meanings. The three basic English meanings/translations of the word are “forgive,” “leave/left,” and “allow” or “let.” Other derived meanings or translations  are “cancel,” “tolerate,” “neglect,” or even “divorce” (1 Cor 7:11–13 would read very differently if English translation had “neglect” instead of “divorce” there!).

The TNIV translates the word as “neglect” twice in Matthew 23:23. “You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.” The little things are important, but we have bigger fish to fry as well. Later, in 23:38 as Jesus closes out the curse, he warns the hypocrites “Your wilderness house is neglected by you” (my translation).

The idea of “neglect” came home to me while reading through Deuteronomy last year. More than once in that book, Moses warned the Israelites to “be careful.” Jesus warns the hypocrites that they are majoring in the minors while neglecting the more important commands of God. In other words, they’re being careful about the wrong things. Herein is a call to be intentionally Christian: don’t be passive about your faith or relationships; don’t think the sins (big or little) that no one sees don’t matter. Don’t neglect your faith.

I say this at the risk of being accused as a legalist. I’m not a legalist, though, at least not about the small things. I have, however, in the last few years come to see the absolute importance of justice, mercy, and faithfulness for the Christian community. These rank right up there with faith, hope, and love, and are intertwined with them to boot. What I am saying is that we should evaluate our priorities and see if we have the mind of Christ. His ministry was one of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. I recently listened to a message by Ravi Zacharias entitled “What Happened after God’s Funeral?” He laments the fact that, in modern entertainment, we tend to laugh at sin rather than be offended by it. I have a hard time seeing how that fits in with the big three. Maybe I’m just a stick in the mud, but Charlie Sheen’s recent troubles bring this truth home quite clearly. How many of us (myself included) have laughed at his exploits on Two and a Half Men, only to discover that the show is a not-so-fictional biography of his real-life exploits?

Have we neglected God’s righteousness in favor of entertainment? Have we neglected our faith to the point that we have trouble distinguishing good from evil any more, and worse, to the point of not being able to respond appropriately in Christian love? Let us go forward in love, bearing a witness of integrity for Christ.

He has shown all you people what is good.

And what does the Lord require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy

and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.