HOW JESUS FACED THE TEMPTER

(Luke 3:21-22; 4:1-13; John 13:1-2; 14:26-31; 22:39-46; John 13:15)

 

After all the people had been baptized and Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, heaven was opened and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came upon him in bodily form. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” 

 

Filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert for forty days, to be tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they were over he was hungry. The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’ ” Then he took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant. The devil said to him, “I shall give to you all this power and their glory; for it had been handed over to me, and I may give it to whomever I wish. All this will be yours, if you worship me.” Jesus said to him in reply, “It is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve.’ ” 

 

Then he led him to Jerusalem, made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’ and: ‘With their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ” 

 

Jesus said to him in reply, “It also says, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’ ” 

 

When the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from him for a time.

 

Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to pass from this world to his Father. He loved his own in the world and he loved them to the end. The devil had already induced Judas, Son of Simon the Iscariot, to hand him over. So [Jesus began to teach them, saying,] “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you. 

 

“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid. 

 

“You have heard me tell you, ‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe. I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over me, but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me. 

 

“Get up, let us go.”

 

Then going out he went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him.  When he arrived at the place he said to them, “Pray that you may not undergo the test.” After withdrawing about a stone’s throw from them and kneeling, he prayed, saying, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done.” … When he rose from prayer and returned to his disciples, he found them sleeping from grief. He said to them, “Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not undergo the test.”

 

“I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.”

The temptation narrative in Matthew’s Gospel (4:3) identifies the devil first as “the tempter.” 

 

In his first epistle to the Thessolonian church (2:17-3:8), Paul also mentions “the tempter”:

“I sent to learn about your faith,

for fear that somehow the tempter had put you to the test and our toil might come to nothing.”

 

Brothers, when we were bereft of you for a short time, in person, not in heart, we were all the more eager in our great desire to see you in person. We decided to go to you – I, Paul, not only once but more than once – yet Satan thwarted us. For what is our hope or joy or crown to boast in the presence of our Lord at his coming if not you yourselves? For you are our glory and joy. 

 

That is why, when we could bear it no longer, we decided to remain alone in Athens, and sent Timothy, our brother and co-worker for God in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith, so that no one be disturbed in these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. For even when we were among you, we used to warn you in advance that we would undergo affliction, just as happened, as you know. For this reason, when I too could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had put you to the test and our toil might come to nothing. 

 

But just now Timothy has returned to us from you, bringing us the good news of your faith and love, and that you always think kindly of us and long to see us as we long to see you. Because of this, we have been reassured about you, brothers, in our every distress and affliction, through your faith. For we now live, if you stand firm in the Lord. 

 

To the Corinthian church (1Co 10:10-14), Paul gives this confident word of encouragement:

“God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength.”

Do not grumble as some of them did, and suffered death by the destroyer. These things happened to them as an example, and they have been written down as a warning to us, upon whom the end of ages has come. 

Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. No trial has come to you but what is human. God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it.

James (1:12-18) writes of temptation in this way:

“Blessed is the man who perseveres in temptation, for when he has been proved

he will receive the crown of life that he promised to those who love him.” 

No one experiencing temptation should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death. 

Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers: all good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change. He willed to give us birth by the word of truth that we may be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

See the teaching regarding “Lead us not into temptation” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2846-2849).

“We ask him not to allow us to take the way that leads to sin. 

We are engaged in the battle ‘between flesh and spirit’;

this petition implores the Spirit of discernment and strength.”

 

The catechism goes on to teach concerning “deliver us from evil” (2850-2854):

“In this petition, evil is not an abstraction, but refers to a person, Satan, the Evil One,

the angel who opposes God. 

The devil (dia-bolos) is the one who “throws himself across” God’s plan

and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ.”

 

Deliver us, Lord, we beseech you, from every evil and grant us peace in our day,

so that aided by your mercy

we might be ever free from sin and protected from all anxiety,

as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

 

DUNG or DISCIPLESHIP

In another class I teach, THE PASSION OF CHRIST, I mentioned how the all-encompassing significance of Christ's Passion makes everything else in comparison merely "B.S."  This is shocking to hear in a theology class. The term "B.S." may not seem like something one would associate with scripture, but Paul does give some precedent for thinking so.  In Philippians 3:8 we find a word which may very well be traslated as "B.S.":

I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.

The word is translated in this verse as "dung" is, in Greek, skuvbalon.  According to Daniel Wallace (see his word study below), "it takes little imagination to see a derivative and metaphorical sense from the original notion of crap or s**t. One can easily imagine someone saying, 'We were starving and so we went to a man’s field, but since the harvest had recently occurred, all that was left was skuvbala!' ... the word-play seems to be intentional and the meanings of the terms in hellenistic Greek do indeed reflect their roots."

The full word study that follows may be found at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5318:

A Brief Word Study on Skuvbalon

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.

 

(neuter noun, used once in the New Testament [Phil 3:8])

 

This essay is a basic diachronic word study on a rare term, found only once in the New Testament, in Phil 3:8. The NET Bible renders this verse as follows: “More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!–that I may gain Christ…”

 

Most other modern English versions have ‘rubbish’ (ESV, NRSV, NKJV, NIV, NAB, REB) or ‘garbage’ (TEV, NJB, TNIV) for the term. At issue is more than whether slang is used in the NT; the sense of Paul’s view of is former life—his life apart from Christ—is involved. If mere ‘rubbish’ is the force, then a sense of worthlessness is in view; if ‘dung’ is the force, then both worthlessness and revulsion is in view.

 

Rather than be fully explicit, this study will address the meaning in more genteel terms and use asterisks where the more sophisticated (or perhaps less sophisticated!) can supply the appropriate letters.

 

Range of Meaning

This word is used primarily for excrement, especially human excrement; secondarily for rubbish, dirt, leavings, etc. It is a NT hapax legomenon (Phil 3:8).

1. dung, (human) excrement

(especially in the plural, as in Phil 3:8); or with a stronger emotive connotation (and the concomitant shock value), crap, s**t. NT: Phil 3:8* (debatable; may belong under definition 2); Other: Plu. 2.352d; Alex. Aphr. Pr. 1.18; Aret. SD 1.15; Artemid. Onirocr. 1.67; 2.14; Str. 14.1.37; J. BJ 5.571; 5.13.7; PFay. 119.7 (i/ii AD).

 

Illustrations:

Josephus’ description of the conditions within the walls of Jerusalem during the final siege of the Romans in the Jewish War (66-73 CE) is intended to evoke the strongest reaction by his readers (Josephus, Jewish War 5.571):

. . . the corpses of the lower classes thrown out through the gates amounted in all to 600,000; of the rest it was impossible to discover the number. They added that, when strength failed them to carry out the poor, they piled the bodies in the largest mansions and shut them up; also that a measure of corn had been sold for a talent, and that later when it was no longer possible to gather herbs, the city being all walled in, some were reduced to such straits that they searched the sewers and for old cow dung and ate the offal therefrom, and what once would have disgusted them to look at had now become food.

 

In Strabo’s description of the rebuilt Smyrna, he lauds the plans and efforts of Antigonus, Lysimachus, and the citizens, noting however one glaring flaw (Strabo,Geography 14.1.37):

But there is one error, not a small one, in the work of the engineers, that when they paved the streets they did not give them underground drainage; instead,excrement covers the surface, and particularly during rains, when the cast-off filth is discharged upon the streets.

 

Proportionately, the word seems to have occurred in the papyri and other non-literary documents far more frequently than in the literature. A good illustration is found in PapyrusFayum 119.7 (c. 100 CE) in which Gemellus informs his son that the donkey driver has bought “a little bundle and rotten hay, the whole of which is decayed so that it is like crap.”

 

2. rubbish, dirt, scraps, leavings

NT: Phil 3:8* (debatable; may belong under definition 1); Other: Jul. Or. 5.179c; PCairZen 494.16 (iii BC); PSI 3.184.7 (plural, AD 292); Sirach 27.4; PRyl 2.149.22 (AD 39-40).

 

Illustrations:

In Sirach 27:4 the word bears emotive force, though it is not as dramatic as a vulgar rendering would suggest: “As when one sifts with a sieve, the refuse remains; so also the filth of man in his speech.”

 

But even in the first century CE the word was used occasionally with no shock value connotations. For example, in the collection of the Rylands Papyri 2.149.22 (39-40 CE) the writer speaks of animals grazing “on the gleanings of my vegetable-seed crop.” Thus “gleanings” or “table scraps” is a legitimate (though admittedly rare) nuance in use during the time of Paul.1

 

By the fourth century CE, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off, so much so that it is even seen as a proper name—cf. P. Oxy. 1.43, verso iii.25 (295 CE). Nevertheless, Chrysostom can refer to skuvbalon as bearing the meaning of “manure” in Phil 3:8, but he seems unaware of its emotive force—even arguing that there is some value in manure! (Cf. Chrysostom’s commentary on Philippians, MPG 62:263-265, where he mentions the word twelve times).

 

As well, in the fourth century CE, the emperor Julian can use the term to describe the earth, though with intent to evoke some sense of disgust by way of contrast (Julian, Orations 179C):

But is not this Logos Attis, who not long ago was out of his senses, but now through his castration is called wise? Yes, he was out of his senses because he preferred matter and presides over generation, but he is wise because he adorned and transformed this refuse [our earth] with such beauty as no human art or cunning could imitate.

 

Related Terms

Words from the skubal- root:

skubalivzein: to regard as dung, to treat contemptuously (D.H. Orat.Vett 1)

skubaleuvein (a derivative from skubalivzein): to regard as dung, to treat contemptuously (Schol. on Luc. Nec. 17)

skubalikov": scorned, filthy (Timocr. 1.6)

skubalwvdh": waste, dung-like (Anon. Londinensis 29.39)

skubalismov": contemptuous rejection; table crumbs (Polyb. 30.19.12; Ps.-Phocyclides 156)

Terms not from the skubal- root:

koprov": excrement, manure—especially as used in animal husbandry (i.e., not as a vulgar term) (Od. 9.329; Hdt. 3.22; Thphr. HP 2.7.4)

skw'r: dung, excrement (Ar. Ra. 146; Stratt. 9)

perivttwma, perivsswma: excrement—apparently used as a medical term in particular (Arist. GA 724b26, HA 511b9; Epicur. Fr. 293; Meno Iatr. 4.35)

cevzw: to empty one’s bowels, to ease oneself (Stratt. 51; Id. Ach. 1170)

 

Summary

That skuvbalon took on the nuance of a vulgar expression with emotive connotations (thus, roughly equivalent to the English “crap, s**t”) is probable in light of the following considerations: (1) its paucity of usage in Greek literature (“Only with hesitation does literature seem to have adopted it from popular speech” says Lang inTDNT 7:445);³ (2) it is used frequently in emotionally charged contexts (as are its verbal cognates) in which the author wishes to invoke revulsion in his audience; (3) there is evidence that there were other, more common and more acceptable terms referring to the same thing (in particular, the agricultural term koprov" and the medical term perivsswma);⁴ (4) diachronically, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off through the centuries; and (5) a natural transfer of the literal to a metaphorical usage, in which disgust, revulsion, or worthlessness are still in view, argues for this meaning as well.⁵ Nevertheless, that its shock value was not fully what “s**t” would be is suggested in the fact that in the Hellenistic period (c. 330 BCE-330 CE) the word was also used on occasion for “gleanings” or “table scraps.”

 

Authorial Usage

The usage of this term in Phil 3:8 has been taken in two different ways (each with two variations of their own):

1. (Human) excrement

a. dung (without strong shock value)

b. crap, s**t (with strong shock value)

2. non-excrement

a. rubbish, refuse

b. table scraps, leavings

 

Some scholars feel that skuvbalon in Phil 3:8 means “table scraps,” pointing to the connection with “dogs” in 3:2 (so Lightfoot [1881 commentary, p. 149]). But not only is the connection somewhat distant, and overly subtle, but the absolute negation of any value to the apostle’s former life outside of Christ would seem to require something stronger than “table scraps.” For this reason, others have suggested that “rubbish” is the best gloss for our term (so, apparently, Beare [116], and several modern translations). As Lang points out, however, “To the degree that the Law is used in self-justification, it serves the flesh and is not just worthless but noxious and even abhorrent. The two elements in skuvbalon, namely, worthlessness and filth, are best expressed by a term like ‘dung’” (TDNT 7:447).

 

Moises Silva, whose expertise in lexical studies is well known, sees emotive connotations wedded to the word in Phil 3:8 (Philippians, 180):

And yet the apostle goes even further: what he once regarded highly he now finds revolting. There is no need to downplay the meaning of skybala with such equivalents as “rubbish” (NASB, NIV); while such a meaning is attested (cf. Sir. 27:4—the Greek term could be used of various kinds of filth), a specific reference toexcrement is not uncommon and the KJV rendering “dung” is both appropriate and probable.

 

Silva goes on to say that the gloss “crap” would certainly communicate worthlessness, but is probably not strong enough to communicate revulsion (ibid., n. 20). He thus leaves the question of appropriate translation to the reader’s imagination.

 

Besides the reasons we have given for seeing shock value in the word (under “Summary” mentioned earlier), there is one other reason why the intertwined notion of worthlessness and revulsion seems to be related to human excrement. The context of Phil 3:1-8 is both polemical in tone and contrasting flesh vs. spirit in content. As Lightfoot pointed out, v. 2 refers to Paul’s opponents as “dogs.” But it does more than that—it also refers to them as “the mutilation.” This term is a play on words with “circumcision” (v. 3) and is only euphemistically translated as “those who mutilate the flesh.” The etymology of both words reveals the apostle’s true intent: “circumcision” (peritomhv) is made up of two roots which suggest “cutting around” while “mutiliation” (katatomhv) is made up of two roots which suggest “cutting down” or “cutting off.”⁶ Thus Paul is accusing his opponents of botching the job of circumcision so badly that the victim is left with mutilated genitalia. There is strong shock value in the apostle’s words here.

This statement is followed immediately by a diatribe on the lack of value of the flesh. Thrice in vv. 3-4 is “flesh” explicitly mentioned; it is further implied in references to circumcision (vv. 2, 3, 5). In this section Paul is essentially arguing that if his opponents could claim that the flesh had some value, he would be in a better position to do so. Yet he himself acknowledges that the flesh and his former life as a devout Jew are worthless; he counts them as nothing (v. 8). The crescendo of his argument is at the end of v. 8 where he says “indeed, I regard them as skuvbala that I might gain Christ.” Having said this, he launches into a positive presentation of his new life in Christ. If skuvbala is translated “s**t” (or the like), a word picture is effectively made: this is all that the “flesh” can produce—and it is both worthless and revolting. That the apostle is not above using graphic and shocking terms has already been demonstrated in vv. 2-3. The reason for the shocking statement in v. 8, then, may well be to wake up his audience to the real danger of his opponents’ views. It is not insignificant that there is precedent for the apostle’s white-hot anger over a false gospel being couched in not-so-delicate terms: his letter to the “foolish Galatians” is replete with such evocative language.

 

Conclusion

In Phil 3:8, the best translation of skuvbala seems clearly to be from the first group of definitions. The term conveys both revulsion and worthlessness in this context. In hellenistic Greek it seems to stand somewhere between “crap” and “s**t.” However, due to English sensibilities, and considering the readership (Christians), a softer term such as “dung” is most appropriate. The NET Bible, along with a few other translations, grasp the connotations here, while most modern translations only see the term as implying worthlessness. But Paul’s view of his former life is odious to him, as ours should be to us. The best translation, therefore, is one that picks up both worthlessness and revulsion, and probably a certain shock value.

 

---

¹ Even here it takes little imagination to see a derivative and metaphorical sense from the original notion of crap or s**t. One can easily imagine someone saying, “We were starving and so we went to a man’s field, but since the harvest had recently occurred, all that was left was skuvbala!”

 

² None of the related terms occurs in the NT.

 

³ This would be expected if the term especially had an emotionally-charged force to it. Its paucity can be seen by a computer search of the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae (1990 version). Out of 3165 authors and over 65 million words (from Homer to 1453 CE), there are only 178 instances of skuvbalon (for comparisons, see the following footnote).

 

⁴ A TLG search revealed 1736 instances of koprov" and 2858 of perivsswma (or perivttwma).

 

⁵ I recall reading a papyrus fragment some time ago in which sailors used this term as an exclamation of disgust when seagulls overhead emptied their bowels, but I have been unsuccessful in relocating the reference.

 

⁶ I am not here arguing for etymologizing as a legitimate approach to lexicography; however, the word-play seems to be intentional and the meanings of the terms in hellenistic Greek do indeed reflect their roots.

 

US & THEM

The  goal of Christian Ethics is to live along the Way of Christ Jesus.  This life includes all we do and everyone we meet.  There exists tension in following the Way because individuals along the Way will have their individual way of following.  To continuoulsy follow the Way together demands that we be able to tolerate things we may find disagreeable; the Christian way of doing this is to first love God as revealed in Christ Jesus so that we can love others as ourselves in faithful imiation of Jesus himself. 

In love, then, we can communicate with one another without turning away from one another.  Any distinction between "us" and "them" need not be an excuse to disrupt community.  Christian ethics defines Christian community, so there will be those who choose to remain outside such community; however, those within Christian community must continually act to invite those outside of Christian community to become part of the Christian community. 

The Christian hope is that God is working to reconcile all things to Himself, having decisively done so already through the Person of Jesus Christ, and that our actions in this life cooperate with the way God is working.  By the grace of God we can be tolerant, imitating God's own gracious forbearance in withholding his sure judgment against us for our own transgressions.  Thus we pray,

Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed by Thy Name.  Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.  And, lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.  For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever.  AMEN!

BEING BAPTIZED

 In class the term "being baptized" is often used in some way.  Since baptism is an important concept in Christian Ethics, I probably should have spent more time teaching how to understand what baptism means.  There is so much to say about this, but I think the writer in the following essay describes very well why baptism is no mere ritual.  What follows is just the opening of an excellent review essay written by an acquaintance of mine, James K.A. Smith, who was working on his doctorate in philosophy at Villanova University when the events he described took place.  I encourage you to read the whole review at http://www.calvin.edu/~jks4/philchristi.pdf 

 

Epistemology for the Rest of Us: Hints of a Paradigm Shift in Abraham’s Crossing the Threshold

James K. A. Smith

Department of Philosophy / Calvin College / Grand Rapids, Michigan 

 

I would like to invite you to a tiny little mission church in north Philadelphia.  It is the site of one of my most treasured memories of ministry, but also an event that constantly challenges my inherited paradigms in philosophy of religion.

 

It is an early winter evening, so darkness presses against the windows of the rented sanctuary as a small group of believers are gathering; light and song push back against that darkness and oozes out of the cracks of the aging, tiny structure. We have gathered for an evening service of celebration as several members of a neighborhood family, new to the church, have presented themselves for baptism. Over the past several months we have witnessed a transformation in the mother and some of her children and tonight they make public profession of their newfound faith by dying and rising in the waters of baptism. The father and some uncles have come for the service to honor those being baptized, but as with previous visits to Sunday worship, they remain aloof, distant, and unengaged. But tonight that will change.

 

Baptism in a Pentecostal church brings together the charismatic and the sacramental: their baptism is situated in a narrative enacted through song and sermon, echoed in the story of their testimonies as they present themselves for baptism. And as they are baptized, Pastor Billings draws upon the materiality and physicality of the sacrament as a picture of the Gospel itself. Tonight it’s not just a matter of telling, but a matter of showing. As the mother emerges from the water it feels as if we are witnessing the resurrection itself.  Pastor and parishioner embrace in tears as the congregation can no longer contain its “Hallelujahs!” and shouts of praise; their songs and prayers become the sound track of resurrection. He is risen! She is risen! As the teenagers are baptized, they each renounce the Evil One and pledge allegiance to the coming King. They have a new story, a new love, a new desire.

 

And then we notice that slowly the father has made his way to the front of the sanctuary. He has been gripped by something in what he has witnessed.  As others notice, a hush comes over the congregation. His brothers with him, we see the father quietly but urgently speaking with the pastor, and then a laugh of surprise and joy breaks across the pastor’s face as he embraces the father and assures him, “Of course!” The men have come asking: “Can we be baptized, too? Can we become Christians?” The waters of baptism stir once again and the sound track of resurrection becomes even louder as an entire family is enfolded into the family of God.

 

Just what happened there? More to the point, to what extent can the regnant paradigms in philosophy of religion think or make sense of a scene like this one? This father’s desire to embrace the Christian story—and be embraced by Christ—was not an instance of intellectual resolution. Christ was not the “answer” to a “question.” Jorge was not drawn to “theism,” and when he, too, emerged from the waters of baptism he did not rise with a new “perspective” or “worldview.” He didn’t die to skepticism and rise to “knowledge” (cf. Rom. 6:1–14). Something other, something different, something both ordinary and extraordinary was witnessed there. Are the dominant frameworks in philosophy of religion able to do justice to what happened there in that tiny sanctuary on a winter night? Or are they plagued by a kind of reductionism and rationalism that is poorly calibrated to understand a scenario like this one? What picture of the “believer” is assumed in our philosophies of religion?

 

 

Abstract:

William Abraham’s “canonical theism”calls into question standard strategies in philosophy of religion

which

(1) strain out the particularities of Christian faith, distilling a “mere theism”

and

(2) position Christian faith within a broader, “general” epistemology.

 

I evaluate Abraham’s call  for a philosophical approach that honors the thick particularity of Christian faith

and makes room for the unique epistemological status of revelation.

I conclude that

Abraham’s promising project could be extended to more radically call into question

the “intellectualism” that characterizes contemporary philosophy of religion.