The Cannibalization of the West and the Rise of Islam

I said in previous articles that the West was on its way to cannibalizing itself. After you have devoured tradition and all your enemies, there’s nothing else left to eat but your own children and yourself. This is intellectual seppuku. It is to volunteer to be a sacrifice for a god and to be flung into a volcano of spitting lava. A recent event dramatically demonstrates my point. The story is reported at The Glazov Gang’s site on YouTube[1] and at Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch.[2] Recently, a Leftist activist was raped by two Muslim men. The story was that she was helping these Muslims adjust to Swedish society, showing an example of a Swede who hated Islamophobia. For her efforts, she was raped. Her Antifa, activist, feminist, ideology led her to suppress the evidence before her eyes that the traditional Muslims she was helping were nasty people. Another Antifa activist felt the bite of Islam, for he was raped by a Somalian Muslim. But in typical Leftist fashion, he didn’t blame the Muslim for raping him, for the rapist was the product of his society and upbringing.[3]
              Jamie Glazov and Daniel Greenfield seeringly critique Leftists, for the Left would rather be raped than claim white privilege. [4] Jamie Glazov perfectly sums up the cannibalistic ways of the Left:

…not only are they destroying their own society, as Leftists often do, but in the end they often, of course, sacrifice themselves…..they’re just sacrificing themselves now on the altar of their utopian ideals….[5]

Glazov cites the examples of Bolsheviks from the West who moved to Russia to support the Revolution, only to be murdered by Stalin, and the Leftists who went to Iran after the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power and were killed. Glazov sagely concludes:

…the utopian revolutions eat their own children….This death wish that we see in the Left…their ideology does not just lead to the abuse and death of others, but it leads to the abuse of themselves, and the death of themselves….[the Leftists] are supporting that totalitarian monolithic ideology that is coming in. And what they want to do, is that they want to shed themselves of their own unwanted selves; they want to blur their own individuality into a collective totalitarian whole. In that belief system, of course your own blood is going to be shed eventually, of course you’re going to get raped eventually…in dancing…with our totalitarian adversaries….In [the Left’s] enterprise, they not only perpetrate the blood of others, the frightening thing is, that in the final chapter, for the Leftist believer the blood must become one’s own.[6]

                The future is mapped out before us if things continue the way they are currently. If the Left continues to grow, it will consume itself in the West. Once this happens, a ‘strong man’ will move in, and at this moment, the only frontrunner in the West for a strong man is Islam!

---

[1] Jamie Glazov, “Glazov Moment: Raped After Trying to Descredit Islamophobes,” YouTube,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=004pFM30Yvc.

[2] Robert Spencer, “Swedish Woman Meets Two Muslim Migrants at Night to Prove Xenophobes wrong, is Brutally Raped,” Jihad Watch (April 24^th, 2018), https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/swedish-woman-meets-two-muslim-migrants-at-night-to-prove-xenophobes-wrong-is-brutally-raped.

[3] Oliver J.J. Lane, “After Anal Rape, Left Wing Activist Felt ‘Guilt and Responsibility’ His Migrant Attacker was Deported,” Breitbart (Aprl 7^th, 2016), http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/07/after-anal-rape-leftist-felt-despair-that-his-somalian-attacker-was-deported/.

[4] Jamie Glazov and Daniel Greenfield, “The Glazov Gang- Avoiding Rape is White Privilege,” YouTube (April 21^st, 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb4zO1d3z6c.

[5] Glazov, “Raped After Trying”. See, interview with Rebecca Sommer [Mark Tapson, “German Activist has Her Eyes Opened About Muslim Refugees,” Frontpage Magazine (Feb. 16^th, 2018), https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269321/german-activist-has-her-eyes-opened-about-muslim-mark-tapson]

[6] Ibid.

Complementarian Political-Correctness

I just published a post that argued that 1 Peter 3:6 was adroitly skipped round by a Complementarian scholar. In this post, I will show a series of fallacious arguments and false disjunctions that feed the Complementarian position and evince a politically-correct side to Complementarianism.  Once again, for the sake of objectivity and accountability- and because the article is short- I’ve included the Complementarian’s comments. The writer is Jared C. Wilson, Director of Content Strategy for Midwestern Seminary.[1] 

Complementarianism is not generally about authority/submission, as if they exist in a moral vacuum. It is about what biblical authority/submission look like. The passages where complementarians find reference to the authority/submission dynamic in marriage do not neglect to show us the nature of the authority.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church… (Ephesians 5:25-29)

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the

wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Corinthians 7:4)

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,

showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs

with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (1

Peter 3:7)

Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. (Colossians

3:19)

This is what a complementarian man does.

A complementarian husband does not exercise his authority absent of any authority over him. The Bible that grounds his authority describes his responsibilities, so he submits to God's authority, and he is under the authority of a local church. Contrary to caricature, the complementarian husband who uses his views as a license to shut out his wife's counsel, to forsake her cherishing and freedom, and to deny her flourishing and edification is not a complementarian at all, but a selfish brute in need of sharp rebuke and church discipline. And if the situation calls for it (physical abuse or any other compromise of safety), legal justice.

No view of gender roles will protect us from sin, certainly. But real complementarianism is not about "lone ranger" husbands deciding according to their own whims what's good for their wives and families. It is about husbands under God's authority and the authority of a local church cherishing, honoring, and building up their families. Husbands are charged with presenting their wives sanctified and spotless to Christ, not burdened and beaten down by neglect and dishonor. A complementarian man's mission is his wife's joy in Christ. In fact, Proverbs 12:4 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 imply that a wife haggard in spirit and squelched in soul is evidence of a husband derelict of his duty, regardless of his views on gender roles. Any man who treats his wife in a neglectful or abusive way is no complementarian; he is a walking perversion of manhood in need of repentance.[2]

Here are the fallacious arguments in order:

#1. “Complementarianism is not generally about authority/submission, as if they exist in a moral vacuum. It is about what biblical authority/submission look like.”

The office and nature of authority is played down to concentrate on what authority looks like. And, as I argued elsewhere, this is the Complementarian Achilees’ Heel.[3] Complementarianism skirts by authority in itself to deal with actions only. Yet, the Bible is most definitely concerned with authority in its nature and with those who have an office or position of authority. How can one read Romans 9:19-21 and conclude that authority is, in itself, not a major issue in Scripture? Systematic Theologians refer to the “authority of Scripture” as a fundamental doctrine. We speak about the authority of elders without blinking an eye. Christ is the Head of the church, in authority over it. Yet, when it comes to marriage, the husband’s ‘office’ of headship and the nature of his authority are given lip-service. How are we meant to know what is an act of authority and what it looks like if we have no profound understanding of authority in the first place? And do we not run the huge risk of letting the tail wag the dog? If actions circumscribe authority, does this entail that authority cannot be understood except in actions? What if these actions describe authority in a very feminist-looking manner?

#2: “The passages where complementarians find reference to the authority/submission dynamic in marriage do not neglect to show us the nature of the authority.”

After this statement, the writer lists a series of verses describing how the husband acts. And therein lies the problem: the verses do not describe the nature of authority; they describe how it acts or functions. The writer has conflated the nature of authority with its function, but they are not the same thing. A sergeant has authority over his soldiers and acts sacrificially; a different sergeant has authority over his soldiers and acts cowardly. Which sergeant has authority? One leader sets free prisoners; another kills just men. Which leader has authority? Why did Jesus confirm that Pilate had authority over him to kill him or set him free (John 19:10-11)? The existence of authority and its nature is patently not determined by actions.

            We must not confuse the purpose of authority with its nature. Biblical authority of any sort is given for the welfare and protection of God’s creation. It is quite another matter, however, how that authority is used: does it achieve its goals or not? This is not a trick. Think about it: are people in authority flawless? If a pastor, unwittingly at the time, makes an error and is somewhat harsh on someone in the congregation, do we refuse to acknowledge his authority because of what he did? If a husband is harsh does he have authority over his wife? This is a very important question and Complementarians must answer it. Plainly, as far as Peter is concerned, a wife is due obedience to her husband even if he is harsh, for then it is her Christian responsibility to win him to Christ (1 Pet.3:1). A husband’s authority is not dependent upon his actions.

#3. “A complementarian husband does not exercise his authority absent of any authority over him. The Bible that grounds his authority describes his responsibilities, so he submits to God's authority, and he is under the authority of a local church.”

It is true that a Christian husband is under the authority of God and under the authority of the church. Is the husband under the authority of ‘Caesar’? Of course (Matt.22:21): husbands must submit to all authorities appointed by God. But the church and society have authority over the husband only to the extent given to them by God. The flip-side is this: the husband is head of his own household and family. The church does not have the final say in how a husband leads his home. That is, in his capacity as head over his own household, the husband is not under the authority of the church or society. As a citizen, the husband is under society’s authority; and as a member of the body of Christ, the husband is under the church’s authority. However, the husband has a sphere of authority that belongs to him alone under God. If this were not so, then society would determine the decisions of a household, or church would determine the decisions of a household. This is a crucial and practical distinction when it comes to what is, and what is not, permissible for a Christian husband to do or decide in regard to leading his family. What if some elders disagree with the husband, is he wrong? Do they have a right to enter into the business of his home? Only to the extent that he is a member of the church or is violating God’s word. After that they must step back. What if an eldership is weak and does not lead well? Is the husband now beholden to that particular eldership? Are you telling me that you’ve never heard of a church where the elders went too far and stuck their noses into a family’s business?

#4. “Contrary to caricature, the complementarian husband who uses his views as a license to shut out his wife's counsel, to forsake her cherishing and freedom, and to deny her flourishing and edification is not a complementarian at all, but a selfish brute in need of sharp rebuke and church discipline. And if the situation calls for it (physical abuse or any other compromise of safety), legal justice.”

Where is this husband that the Complementarians describe? Within today’s society or church? I’d like to meet him, for he’s a rare creature! Which Christian husband aims to deny to his wife the opportunity to flourish and to grow? But here’s a scenario: what if a Christian wife is a pain in the butt and is acting in a contrary manner? What if her counsel has consistently been weak, foolish, and selfish? For example, what if her husband is a merchant seaman and wishes to settle on land, but she counsels against this because he is earning a lot of money? What if she claims that her husband is a brute because he rejects her counsel? Do you think, Complementarian, that these things don’t happen and that this is hypothetical? Think again! In any authority structure there is a relationship between the one in authority and the one under authority. Through mankind’s history, the one in authority has had the right to reject the counsel of the one under authority. Should Jesus have taken Peter’s darkened counsel not to die on the cross? Why did Jesus refuse such counsel and not entertain it? Why did he close it down? Why did he not seek Peter’s advice on the issue? What if the husband is saturated with the wife’s counsel and has come to his decision? What would a group of elders do if it had heard out the church and decided it didn’t agree? What does the boss of a company do when those under him disagree but he’s heard enough and simply will not listen anymore?

#5. “No view of gender roles will protect us from sin, certainly. But real complementarianism is not about "lone ranger" husbands deciding according to their own whims what's good for their wives and families.”

And so the false disjunction comes into its main complaint, namely, the husband acting unilaterally. And, once more, the reader is ‘treated’ to hyperbole and polarities.

The Complementarian reading is so utterly impractical that it verges on the ridiculous. Complementarians hate the thought of the husband acting unilaterally; it is their greatest fear. Yet, they do not consider that in all human structures of authority, those in authority make decisions unilaterally. Does your eldership consult you on everything? How on earth can anyone in authority operate unless he or she has the power to act unilaterally? Does the President of the United States act unilaterally? Does a school principle act unilaterally? Does the boss of a company act unilaterally? Why do huge corporations hire CEOs at great expense? Surely it is to act with decisiveness, even through use of unilateral decision-making. When Napoleon was on the battlefield, did he stop to consult his generals each time he decided to make a great move? Were all his major power-plays the result of interacting with this generals, or did he create and enact some of them by himself, through his generals? But forget about the person in authority. Let’s consider the person under authority. Do we not- all of us- make decisions for ourselves every single day? THIS IS UNILATERAL DECISION-MAKING IN ACTION! If a wife decides to write to an editor complaining about a magazine article, has she sinned because she has not consulted her husband?

            Or, let’s look at this problem from another angle. Would Complementarians say that a Christian husband has no right to act unilaterally and get his family out of trouble? What if a husband decides, all by himself, that he’s had enough and wants his family to leave an area of high violence, danger, and drug abuse? Does he now have a right to act on their behalf and deliver them without even consulting them?

            And just how does authority work? What does a husband do if his wife constantly disagrees with him? Can he act to perform what he thinks is right? Or is he always bound to his wife’s objection? Or is it a stalemate? Where’s his authority? So, how does the Complementarian see these situations playing out?

And, please, don’t say Christ gave up his authority- he did not! Why did the apostles leave everything behind and immediately follow Christ without consulting their wives? If unilateralism is such an evil, why did Christ effectively ask them to commit sin?  Christ’s authority was not defined by his sacrificial life; his authority was demonstrated in his sacrificial life. But it is crucial to understand that he never stopped, for a moment, being in authority, and that he acted unilaterally as the ‘husband’ of his wife, his church. Did he not go to the cross without ‘consulting’ his wife? Yes, he did…and more…he went in spite of his bride, the church!           

And where is this husband who goes around acting always on his own whims? Again I say, introduce me to him. And it is the position of Mr. Wilson that he does not behave this way (how could he, for such members would be disciplined by the church?). But one fly spoils the ointment! Has he NEVER acted whimsically? How many times has he done so? But maybe he hasn’t, yet someone else (a Complementarian) has. Is that person a terrible husband deserving the discipline of the church? Do people in authority make mistakes? Maybe Mr. Wilson doesn’t!

#6. “Husbands are charged with presenting their wives sanctified and spotless to Christ, not burdened and beaten down by neglect and dishonor. A complementarian man's mission is his wife's joy in Christ. In fact, Proverbs 12:4 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 imply that a wife haggard in spirit and squelched in soul is evidence of a husband derelict of his duty, regardless of his views on gender roles. Any man who treats his wife in a neglectful or abusive way is no complementarian; he is a walking perversion of manhood in need of repentance.”

It is exasperating and tiresome to respond to constant exaggeration. Where, I ask, is this horrible Christian husband?  What was Adam’s great sin? Was it that he bullied his wife? Perhaps he harassed her and got physical? Maybe he treated her with emotional disdain? Nope…none of the above. His ‘great sin’ was that he sat back and did nothing; he passed the reins over to his wife and she led the way. No, sir, a horribly brutal husband is not modern, American evangelicalism’s biggest problem: an effeminate husband is! Why have so many written about the feminization of the evangelical church? Why is evangelical feminism abounding so much? Why are more and more evangelical females turning to feminists tendencies? Let me ask the Complementarian: do the females of your church claim that they are feminists?

Why is “my mission” my wife’s joy in Christ? Is not my mission to serve God and obey his commandments? Part of that mission is my wife’s joy in Christ. Why does everything center on the wife and woman? Where’s my church, my God, my children, in this?

            And just how do Proverbs 12:4 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 imply a dereliction of duty by a husband? Proverbs 12:4 states:

An excellent wife is the crown of her husband;
but she who shames him is like rottenness in his bones.

Wilson has successfully reversed the polarity of the proverb! It has nothing…but nothing...to do with the husband’s actions, and EVERYTHIG to do with the wife’s actions. A disobedient wife is rottenness in a husband’s bones…AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM!

            1 Corinthians 11:7 states:

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

Where I come from, we would say, ‘What’s this got to do with the price of milk?’ In other words, the verse has no bearing at all on the topic of a bad husband.

            And so the Complementarian ‘turn’ is completed: verses that have nothing to do with the husband are press-ganged into a narrative that berates the big, bad husband! Complementarians remind me of modern day snowflakes, white males, who commit flagellation, despising their own kind (white men) so as to prove themselves to be true and genuine human beings. With such zeal, Complementarians skip around traditional concepts, such as unilateralism and the nature of authority, so that they may testify to the world of evangelical feminists that Complementarians are truly righteous human beings who are not misogynistic (like the traditionalists)!  

---

[1] John Harley, “Issues with Bill Mounce’s Complementarian Reading of 1 Peter 3:6,” Ridderbos Times (April 17^th, 2018), http://ridderbostimes.blogspot.com/2018/04/bill-mounces-complementarian-reading-of.html, accessed 4/18/2018.

[2] Jared C. Wilson, “The Shape of Complementarian Husbanding,” For the Church (June 15, 2015), https://ftc.co/resource-library/blog-entries/the-shape-of-complementarian-husbanding, accessed 4/18/2018.

[3]John Harley, Complementarianism's Achilees' Heel," Ridderbos Times (March 7th, 2018), http://ridderbostimes.blogspot.com/2018/03/complementarianisms-achiles-heel.html, accessed 4/18/2018.

Issues with Bill Mounce's Complementarian reading of 1 Peter 3:6

I recently criticized Complementarianism for its unwillingness to lay hold of the term “authority” and to link it directly to the husband’s headship. I gave an example of a Complementarian writer, who recently stated that a danger for Complementarianism was that it asserted hierarchical and patriarchal language. I informed the reader that the article completely avoided using the term ‘authority’. In sum, the writer’s position: 1) rejected hierarchicalism; 2) bypassed the use of “authority”. All in all, very similar in appearance to an Evangelical Feminist approach! [1]

            I stumbled across another article by yet another scholar, another self-confessed Complementarian, that gave cause for concern.[2] I’ve pasted the whole- brief- article below and put into bold print those comments that I find disconcerting:

Am I “Lord” of my Wife? (1 Peter 3:6)

In this day and age, this is obviously a controversial verse, but it is chock full of interesting Greek tidbits, not the least of which is semantic range.

Peter is encouraging Christian wives to respect their husbands, being submissive (ὑποτασσόμεναι, 3:1) to them, and placing an emphasis on internal qualities and not external beauty. The goal is evangelistic; their behavior may win their husbands to the faith.

As an example of submissiveness Peter refers to Sarah, who was submissive to Abraham her husband, κύριον αὐτὸν καλοῦσα. The participle καλοῦσα is expressing one way in which she expressed her relationship to Abraham. She addressed him as “lord.”

I am going to look at some of the other grammatical issues of the verse in my new YouTube channel, Moments with Mounce, but I want to talk about the issue of semantic range here.

BDAG gives the range of meaning for κύριος as:

1. one who is in charge by virtue of possession, owner (such as the owner of the vineyard or the master of the house)
2. one who is in a position of authority, lord, master

a.       of earthly beings, as a designation of any pers. of high position (which is where they place our verse)

b.       of transcendent beings

κύριος is a common example of why we need to pay close attention to semantic range. Now before we go any further, those of you who know me know I am not a “raving liberal.” I am a complementarian (see my commentary on the Pastorals). But I really do wonder how far we can, or even should, push the meaning of κύριος.

I am more than cognizant of the fact that Abraham and Paul lived in a highly patriarchal culture. And I also recognize that the argument was not based in creation as is 1 Timothy 2:13. But I find myself uncomfortable pushing the meaning of κύριος very far. I certainly would not want my wife, Robin, to call me “lord” or “sir.” We have a traditional marriage relationship based on love and trust and respect. But if Robin were to call me “sir,” I would see it as a failure to lead on my part.

Under definition 2, BDAG says this. “As a form of address to respected pers. gener.; here, as elsewhere, = our sir(as Mod. Gk.) Mt 25:11; J 12:21; 20:15.” My marine son addresses his superiors as, “Sir!” But given all the biblical teaching on marriage, Robin calling me “sir,” as I said, would be a sign of my failure to lead.

The point in 1 Peter, culture aside (if that were possible), is that the wife is to treat her husband with respect (according to v 1, in a “submissive” way), but I am not convinced that there is a term in the English language that conveys that properly. I can’t think of a specific word that Robin could use to address me that would convey respect without violating the other aspects of our relationship such as love.

As far as translations are concerned, you can leave it “sir” (much better than the servile “lord”) and expect people to understand it in its ancient culture. But if a translation is trying to make an ancient book sound totally modern, I don’t think there is a word. Better something like, “Just as Sarah respected and submitted to Abraham, as shown even in how she addressed him ….”

The purpose of the article was to discuss the semantic range of kurios (“lord”) as used in 1 Peter 3:6. But it is not at all clear that there is, at first glance, anything to discuss. Mounce himself cites BAGD’s range of meanings for kurios. Both definitions are clearly tied to one calling the shots. If one is “in charge” of something or someone else, the implication is that the one in charge not only has responsibilities to his charge but has control over his charge, even authority within his charge. And, of course, the second meaning cited by BAGD is specifically related to being in authority over someone, something. Conclusion: kurios is inflexibly a hierarchical term conveying the idea of one being in authority over someone, or something, else. So, the semantic range of kurios is settled.

Yet, Mounce presses on to look at definition #2 and a sub-category. He notes that kurios is said to be “ “a form of address to respected peers…= our sir” ”. Why is this important to Mounce? It cannot be because of semantic range. It turns out that the real issue is that of application of the import of kurios to a modern setting, “But I really do wonder how far we can, or even should, push the meaning of κύριος…. But I find myself uncomfortable pushing the meaning of κύριος very far.” What does Mounce mean? Does he mean that the idea of one being lord over another is a problem? It would seem not, otherwise, how could he follow our “Lord” Jesus Christ? It boils down to, it would seem, that the kurios in authority is the equivalent of a “sir” in today’s world. Mounce cannot bring himself to call himself a “lord”, nor would he ever expect his wife to call him “lord”. For her to call him “lord” would violate the trust and love between them that’s been built over the years. This is not ultimately a cultural thing, for Mounce, “culture aside (if that were possible)”. It is an issue of respect, “The point in 1 Peter, culture aside (if that were possible), is that the wife is to treat her husband with respect (according to v 1, in a “submissive” way)”. How can his wife possibly show respect by calling him “lord” when this would violate the love between them?

It is difficult to pin down Mounce, here. Why his fear? I think the fear is there because of the implications of the semantic range of kurios. A wife ‘submitting’ to her husband is one thing, but calling him ‘lord’ is quite another. Yet, I’m not aware of any modern, western, Complementarian, or traditionalist, who expects his wife to call him “lord”. Why not just say this, then? And so, again, I say, why the fear? Mounce comemnts about kurios’ semantic range and then insists we should not push the meaning of kurios too far. But just how “far” should one “push” the meaning? The reader may think that I’m making much ado about nothing. But the question I have before me is this: has Mounce just managed to erase the contextual force of kurios in 1 Peter 3:6? Has he explained the meaning of kurios away, for the sake of a practical matter between him and his wife?

I think he comes very close to it. How does a text that refers to a wife’s submission become a wrestling ground for a husband’s dilemma concerning lordship? Doesn’t Peter deal with the husband in verse 7? It is all too common to read Complementarians commenting upon the wife’s submission to the husband but soon that explanation turns into a kind of eating of humble-pie by the male speaker/writer that explains why the husband should not be patriarchal and overbearing. What happened to allowing the text to speak for itself?!  Surely the Holy Spirit had something in mind for women and wives to learn by using Peter to refer to Sarah’s example in calling her husband “lord”! And in a context that is dominated by the theme of submission to authority (1 Pet.2:13-2:6), why does Mounce insist that what Peter is really getting at is…respect! This is a typical Complementarian move. It is not ‘about’ respect; it is about submission, about Sarah submitting to her husband’s authority. If we make it about ‘respect’, then we can extend this to say that we adults should “submit” to children because, after all, we owe them respect!

Another matter to factor in is Mounce’s theology. What does it matter whether the use of “lord” is creational or not? Was Jesus’ command to love our enemies ‘creational’? Some commands clearly do not fit into the pre-Fall scenario, nor could they possibly because of the existence of sin and the need to counter it. Mounce’s fear is that if it is creational then he feels obliged to use the term. And so his mind spins to say, ‘Because it’s not creational, I don’t need to expect my wife to use it.’ Again, I’m not aware of any theologian thinking this way. I do not think that the logic follows that because Sarah called her husband “lord” that it was not a creational theme. I am not aware of Eve calling her husband “head” before the Fall. Nor am I aware of Eve calling God “lord” or “God” before the Fall. But if it were a creational theme (for a wife to call her husband ‘lord’) would a wife today ‘have to’ actually name her husband ‘lord’? I think it would depend on the culture (but more on that soon enough). Yet, I am entirely convinced that in Genesis 3:15 God is reaffirming the husband’s headship, rulership, and lordship over his wife as a pre-Fall relationship. I do not think for a moment that Adam became Eve’s ‘ruler’ after the Fall. He was her ruler before it, and it was because he failed to rule her properly that he sunk into sin. For that reason, God reinstituted his job as ruler and Eve’s role as child-bearer.

I would like to ask Mounce what he believes submission to be. Does he believe that the husband is in authority ‘over’ his wife? Is this too patriarchal for him? What does he mean by ‘patriarchal’? Is he against hierarchicalism? Does he reject the thought of being ‘over’ someone?

Another problem arises from Mounce’s position that his argument is not cultural. If it is not cultural, why does it sound a lot like the modern evangelical-feminist position? Secondly, what is he going to do with societies where it is still customary for a wife to call her husband ‘lord’ or the like? Can a Christian couple in, say, Nigeria honor the Lord and love one another deeply if the wife calls her husband ‘lord’? Did Abraham love his wife? A woman would not compromise her love for her husband by calling him ‘lord’, nor would a husband weaken his love for his wife by receiving the title. In Nigeria, I was regularly called by females, “master”- “Master” this… “Master” that…always “Master.” Nobody blinked at it. I did and didn’t like it. But, such was the culture. It was not mere respect: it was submission to authority. In South Korea, society is split into ranks, to the point that a male of equal rank but who is younger must call his elder (and equal in rank) hyungnim (“older brother”). Traditional Korea society places the father as the head and his firstborn son as his second-in-command. It is all about authority. Is this the patriarchal society that Mounce denounces? Is this evil, wrong? I reckon that a fair chunk of the world is likewise ‘patriarchal.’ What to do?

We also have to consider the extent of Abraham’s lordship. Certainly, he was his wife’s “lord”, but in what capacity? Merely as a husband over his wife? Abraham was the lord of his domain. He was lord of all of those under him, including his children. His authority extended beyond his wife to all his kin, servants, and property. In acknowledging her husband as “lord”, she was submitting to her husband’s authority over the whole household. This means that her submission was not unique, for the rest of the household submitted. Yet, his household lordship was particularly relevant to his wife because he was one flesh with her. As one flesh, they drew up, and pulled down, one another together. Sarah thought that she and her husband could not be blessed in accordance with the promise for her “lord” was not able to sire children and she was barren. Yet, in the mercy of God, they both were pulled up together. She realized that she had her part to play in the fulfillment of God’s promise, and her lord had his. That is why Peter soon moves to referring to the husband’s role (1 Pet.3:7).

---

[1] John Harley, "Complementarianism's Achilles' Heel," Ridderbos Times (March 7th, 2018), http://ridderbostimes.blogspot.com/2018/03/complementarianisms-achiles-heel.html, accessed 4/17/18.

[2] Bill Mounce, “Am I ‘Lord’ of My Wife? (1 Peter 3:6)”, Bill Mounce (Nov.3^rd, 2013), https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/am-i-%E2%80%9Clord%E2%80%9D-my-wife-1-peter-3-6, accessed 4/16/2018. 

Spit and salvation!

Mark 7:31-37

³¹ Again He went out from the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, within the region of Decapolis. ³² They brought to Him one who was deaf and spoke with difficulty, and they implored Him to lay His hand on him. ³³ Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva;

 ³⁴ and looking up to heaven with a deep sigh, He said to him, “Ephphatha!” that is, “Be opened!” ³⁵ And his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue was removed, and he began speaking plainly. 

³⁶ And He gave them orders not to tell anyone; but the more He ordered them, the more widely they continued to proclaim it. ³⁷ They were utterly astonished, saying, “He has done all things well; He makes even the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.”

Mark 8:22-26

²² And they came to Bethsaida. And they brought a blind man to Jesus and implored Him to touch him. ²³ Taking the blind man by the hand, He brought him out of the village; and after spitting on his eyes and laying His hands on him, He asked him, “Do you see anything?” ²⁴ And he looked up and said, “I see men, for I see them like trees, walking around.” 

²⁵ Then again He laid His hands on his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and began to see everything clearly. 

²⁶ And He sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”

 John 9:6-11

⁶ When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes,

⁷ and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.

 ⁸ Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, “Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?” ⁹ Others were saying, “This is he,” still others were saying, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the one.” ¹⁰ So they were saying to him, “How then were your eyes opened?” ¹¹ He answered, “The man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash’; so I went away and washed, and I received sight.” 

  

Lots of people chew and spit. Others, rather grossly, spit on to the ground. Jesus’ use of spit to heal, and why he used spit, could easily pass us by because of this. When we add to this that the Bible views spitting as disgusting, even a curse, then we’re even less likely to see Jesus’ use of spit as having more than symbolic meaning. Most are content to think that Jesus used spit as a symbol of healing and that the Jews believed spit, especially the spit of the firstborn, healed. In the above instances, spit does ‘symbolize’ healing, for Jesus spits on someone and then heals the person. However, his spit did not heal anyone; he did! Others say that Jesus used spit like a prophetic act. For example, Elijah raised the widow’s son from the dead, but not before he had stretched himself upon the child three times (1 Kg.17:17-24). I think this prophetic element is on to something, for Jesus is the ultimate Prophet of the Lord, and perhaps Jesus used spit as part of a prophetic ritual that confirmed that his authority was from God himself. Still other writers think that the use of spit was just a bit of drama to magnify the seriousness of the situation. Others again believe that the use of spit was merely another way of saying that God uses means, things, to heal and help people. Whatever truth there is to these values, I think there is a completely different reason for Jesus’ use of spit to heal (the ‘spit-healings’). It is this: he used a symbol of uncleanness to identify with sinners, and to show that healing from sin was through sharing in his ‘uncleanness.’ Put in terms of salvation: we are saved through faith in the One who was cursed for our sake (Gal.3:10-13).

            At the heart of Jesus as a curse is his identification with sinners. We read, for example, in Romans 8:3 that Jesus came in the “likeness of sinful flesh”. Also, we read in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”  Even so, we can easily miss the extent to which Jesus identified with sinners. Often, we refer to the sufferings of Christ as something that mainly took place on the cross, and here and there in Christ’s life. Not so! He was the Son of Man who had nowhere to lay his head (Matt.8:20). Ever tried lying outside in the cold? His Messianic ministry was rife with suffering, suffering he bore for us in identification with us as sinners. Jesus was baptized in water to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt.3:15), in that this was a symbol of his death for his church, and that they, too, were going to undergo a similar baptism into suffering (Mark 10:39). Jesus taught, in Mark 8:34, that if anyone wanted to follow him, they must take up their cross and do so. This was a reflection of Jesus’ attitude: yes, he went to the cross, but in a spiritual sense he was carrying it all the way to Calvary long before he physically carried it toward Golgotha! The whole of Jesus’ ministry was one of fulfilling righteousness, the righteousness of suffering, for the sake of his people.[1] This brings me to a few leading themes in the New Testament that mark out Christ as One who identified with us as sinners: the Suffering Servant; the One who touched the Untouchables; and, the Son of Man and Great High Priest.

The Suffering Servant

Jesus’ identification with sinners is evident in the Servant Songs of Isaiah.  There are four songs:

1)      42:1-9;   2) 49:1-13;   3) 50:4-11;   4) 52:13-53:12.

All of them depict Jesus’ ministry as the Servant of Yahweh. The New Testament is riddled with quotes and allusions to the Songs. In the Gospels, for example, many passages note the Father’s delight in his Son, that the Son has the Spirit and heals, and that the Son has compassion on many. These, and many other themes, are within the Servant Songs and are brought out in the Gospels. In particular, writers identify Jesus’ hardships with the Suffering Servant as described in the fourth song, Isaiah 52:13-53:12. For example, for theme of suffering in Mark we are pointed to Mark 3:20-21; 9:30-32; 10:32-34, 45; 15:34.

All of this is pretty standard fare, but what is not realized too often is that the Servant Songs of Isaiah anticipated that the whole of the Servant’s (Jesus’) life would be one of suffering.  Christians recognize that the eternal Son by his incarnation was in a state of ‘humiliation’, or lowliness, as theologians call it. Yet, what is sometimes left out is that this state was one of suffering from beginning to end. In other words, Jesus’ sufferings for his people did not begin somewhere close to the cross, or on the cross, but started all the way back at his baptism (and, I would argue, go all the way back to his birth). It is for that reason that the New Testament refers to Jesus’ obedience as being unto death (Rom.5:18; Phil.2:8; 3:9; 2 Cor.5:21; Rom.8:3-4). That is, his whole life was death-obedience, cross-obedience, in that it anticipated and played out the sufferings of God’s Servant who would eventually suffer and die on the cross for our sake. There is a remarkable passage in Matthew 8:16-17:

⁶ When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.¹⁷ This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

“He took up our infirmities
    and bore our diseases.”

Matthew cites the fourth Servant Song from Isaiah 53:4 (LXX) and it refers to the Servant bearing the diseases, and taking up the infirmities, of many. This is in the wider context of obedience unto death. Clearly, Jesus’ ministry and his healings were also ‘one’ with his sufferings unto death. This is because as the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, he was breaking the power of sin and dealing with its shame and ignominy throughout his ministry. In casting out demons, miraculously healing many, and other miracles, he was countering the forces of evil and sin that gave rise to those problems in the first place.[2]

The Servant Songs as a whole must be read in this light, that is, as teaching that the Servant was constantly in suffering mode, dealing with the shame and power of sin. The Pharisees opposed Christ, but he was meek, did not lash out, and brought mercy to the multitudes, healing the sick and casting out demons. In that context, Matthew 12:18-21 quotes verses 1-3 of the first Servant Song (Isa.42:1-9):

¹⁸ “Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
    the one I love, in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
    and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
¹⁹ He will not quarrel or cry out;
    no one will hear his voice in the streets.
²⁰ A bruised reed he will not break,
    and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,
till he has brought justice through to victory.
²¹     In his name the nations will put their hope.”

The second Servant Song (Isa. 49:1-13) refers to the Son’s despair and rejection:

⁴ But I said, “I have labored in vain;
    I have spent my strength for nothing at all….
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,
⁷…to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation,
    to the servant of rulers:

The third Song (Isa.50:4-11) is full of the Servant’s obedience and sufferings:

⁵ The Sovereign Lord has opened my ears;
    I have not been rebellious,
    I have not turned away.
⁶ I offered my back to those who beat me,
    my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face
    from mocking and spitting.
⁷ Because the Sovereign Lord helps me,
    I will not be disgraced.
Therefore have I set my face like flint,
    and I know I will not be put to shame.
⁸ He who vindicates me is near.
    Who then will bring charges against me?
    Let us face each other!
Who is my accuser?
    Let him confront me!
⁹ It is the Sovereign Lord who helps me.
    Who will condemn me?
They will all wear out like a garment;
    the moths will eat them up.

I will spare the reader from reading the fourth Song (Isa.52:13-53:12), as it is traditionally the Song that embodies the Servant’s sufferings. All of this suffering is intertwined with the Servant’s joy, God’s delight, the Servant’s vindication, and so forth. Jesus’ life, up unto the cross, was one of suffering interspersed with joy and validation. But it was not until his resurrection that he was truly vindicated by the Father and saw the fruit of his sufferings.

            Now, the Servant Songs do not only relate the Servant’s sufferings; they also describe the Father’s delight and joy in his Servant, and the Servant’s joy, victory, and vindication. But all of this is in pursuit, and as a result, of the Servant’s obedience unto death on the cross, an obedience begun at his baptism. Consequently, the whole life of Christ is in fulfillment of the Suffering Servant, and as such his privations, sufferings, and struggles with evil are part of his sufferings as the Son of Man who obeyed unto death.

            The second part of his identification is the manner in which he physically touched people who were, by the Law of Moses, unclean.

Touching the Untouchables[3]

In Mark 1:41 we read, “Jesus reached out his hand and touched the [leprous] man”. He did not need to do this, as he had the power to heal by a mere word. So, why did he do it? He did it to identify with the ‘unclean’, with sinners. By the letter of the Law, according to the Levitical and priestly rules, anyone touching a leper was unclean until evening (Lev.13:46; 11:40). This is to say nothing of the fact that lepers should remain outside a town and ought to cry, ‘unclean’ (Lev.13:45). None of these things transpired. The leper broke the rules; and Jesus violated the rules. However, he was not a Levite or a son of Aaron. He was, however, a priest after the order of Melchizedek. As such, his obedience to the heavenly Father in his spiritual temple overruled the playbook of Moses.

            Can you imagine the shock, yet huge relief, of a leper, or sick person, by being touched by Christ? In India, within Hinduism, even in the Indian Constitution, there is a segment of society called the Untouchables. They are the pariahs of India. You are, literally, not allowed to touch them. They are socially ‘unclean’. So, they live in their own separate areas, forbidden from mixing with others. Jesus touched many ‘unclean’ people: the dead, the sick, the demon-possessed, those with ‘stuff’ coming from their bodies. In Mark 5, we read of the woman who had been ill for twelve years without any comfort or healing. Along comes Christ, and she makes a beeline for him, ignoring the crowd pressing against her, and she touches Christ’s garment. By the laws of Moses, this made the crowd, Jesus, and the woman unclean! But God’s playbook was being executed here, and the Great High Priest and Physician of the soul immediately healed the woman. Mark comments, “Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering” (Mark 5:29). Freed! Completely freed! Jesus touched the Untouchables of Israel, bringing to them healing and life. Thank you, Son of David!

The Son of Man and Great High Priest

These healings, through his identification with those who were sick, was to the end that the sick person trust in Jesus as the Messiah and come to God, through him, for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:1-12).

            Hebrews does not focus upon the miracles of Jesus, but his spiritual work of identification with sinners. Hebrews 2 refers to the Son of Man who suffered and died for us, “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil….” (Heb.2:14). He was made human so that he could be a merciful high priest. This is in the context of Jesus’ sufferings unto death. But then the writer states, “Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Heb.2:18). The temptation here might refer merely to Jesus’ death and its accompanying sufferings, and to the accusation and temptations flung at him during the time leading to the cross and whilst on the cross.  Even so, this temptation was of a piece with, one with, all of his temptations throughout his life. Thus, Jesus’ life is considered one of suffering and temptation leading up to his death and temptation upon the cross. This was for our sake, so that Jesus might be our faithful high priest in heaven to heal us spiritually (Heb.5:1-10; 6:16-20; 7:1-28).

            The Suffering Servant, the Son of Man, the Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, are titles for One who fully identified with the Untouchables, the unclean, with sinners. With these things in mind, we are better situated to appreciate the significance of the spit-healings. Before expanding upon them, I want to quickly look at what the Bible says about spitting, for this is relevant for understanding Jesus’ identification with us as a cursed One.

Spitting and its significance

In the Bible, spitting on someone was associated with ceremonial uncleanness:

 “If the man with the discharge spits on anyone who is clean, they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening” (Lev.15:8); The Lord replied to Moses, “If her father had spit in her face, would she not have been in disgrace for seven days? Confine her outside the camp for seven days; after that she can be brought back” (Num.12:14).

Yet, there are times that when the spitter was considered righteous and the one spat on/spat out was shameful:

…his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line” (Deut.25:9); “God has made me a byword to everyone, a man in whose face people spit” (Job 17:6); “They detest me and keep their distance; they do not hesitate to spit in my face” (Job 30:10);  “So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (Rev.3:16).

Most notoriously, our righteous Lord, as our sin-bearer, was considered shameful and was spat upon:

I offered my back to those who beat me,
    my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face
    from mocking and spitting. (Isa.50:6)

“who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise” (Mark 10:34; see Luke 18:32); Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him (Mark 14:65); Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him (Mark 15:19).

This information has led commentators to say that Jesus’ use of spit had no significance beyond a superficial form of symbolism.

But I want to lay out an alternative, one based upon Jesus’ identification with sinners. Here it is. Jesus gladly ‘broke’ all the ceremonial rules in pursuit of identifying with those who were rejected by society, or were on its fringes. He did those things in his role as the Son of Man, the Great High Priest, and the Suffering Servant. He was not flouting Moses’ Law but fulfilling it by executing the greater will/playbook of the Father in heaven. Touching the leper is a classic case.[4]  And the use of spit falls into the same category. Spitting on someone was a curse, but Jesus turned it into blessing; after the same manner, according to the Old Testament, no one was to touch a leper, yet Jesus touched the leper and made him whole. The ultimate sign of disgust, namely, spitting on someone, was turned around into a blessing! What does this imply Christologically? The irony is thick, and the will of God exquisite: the One who was spat on becomes the One who ‘spits’ on us! This is merely another form of what is said in 1 Peter 2:24. It says that we were healed, spiritually, by Jesus’ stripes or wounds. And just as Jesus was spat on, and cursed, it is through that curse and shame, that we are spiritually healed and made one with God. ‘My Savior and my Great High Priest!’

That sigh!

In Mark 7:34, it says that Jesus “sighed”. Why did he sigh? It was because, as the Suffering Servant, he bore the sickness of many. He was wrestling with the sin behind the sickness as the Son of Man. It weighed so heavily upon his soul that sickness has struck man down, so, with deep emotion he sighed, and then called upon his Father in prayer.

            Famously, we read that the shortest verse in the Bible is, “Jesus wept” (John 11:35). The context gives no indicate that he was weeping with joy. On the contrary, many were weeping because Lazarus was dead (v31). So, some think Jesus wept because Lazarus had died. However, we are told what was behind Jesus’ weeping, “He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled” because Mary was weeping and those with her were weeping. One could understand that Jesus were deeply moved in his spirit because others were crying. But, what this does not say is that he was deeply moved because Lazarus had died. Also, the verse says Jesus was “troubled” by the crying of Mary and her group. The word “troubled” conveys terror, fear, upset, worry.[5] Why would Jesus be terrified, or afraid, or upset, or worried, about Mary and the group crying? There was another instance where Jesus was troubled. It happened at the Last Supper, for we are told that he was “troubled in his spirit” because Jesus knew who was going to betray him (John 13:21). It seems to me that Jesus was troubled because they were indeed crying. Why were they of so little faith? Jesus had explained to Martha that he was the Resurrection and the Life. He stated that her brother will rise again. Martha was satisfied with this knowledge. She then went and called her sister. Mary was distraught, flinging herself down at his feet, weeping. It was then Jesus became troubled.[6] He was troubled in spirit by their unbelief. He asked where Lazarus was lying, for he was moving in his mind to perform a miracle. They said to him, “ “Lord, come see” ” (John 11:34). It is then we read that Jesus wept. Was he weeping at the thought of seeing Lazarus? By no means! Was he crying because Lazarus was dead? No! He was crying at the fact that he had to go through this spectacle, that he had to ‘prove’ himself and his message by raising Lazarus. Where was their faith? Did they not understand anything? Mary kept complaining. So we read, in verse 38, that Jesus was again deeply moved; like in verse 33, the word embriaomai is more akin to grumbling within.[7] Jesus was grumbling within that the Mary and her group were lacking faith.

            The indicators are there within the chapter. In verse 4, Jesus states, “ “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.” ” So, Jesus had informed his disciples of the purpose of Lazarus’ sickness: Jesus was intimating that he was going to raise Lazarus from the dead. That is why he stayed two days longer where he was before he joined Martha and Mary (11:6). Upon leaving to go to Lazarus, Jesus states that he was going to wake up his friend (11:11). Of course, his disciples entirely misunderstand him (11:12-13). To which, Jesus curtly replied that Lazarus was dead, and that he was glad…NOTE THAT…he was GLAD…for the sake of the disciples. For, they would soon enough see his resurrection power in action and come to believe in him. Thomas still doesn’t get it, and comments that the group should go to Lazarus and die with him (11:16). Martha is the first to encounter the Lord. She has sufficient faith to know that her brother will be raised on the Last Day. But she did not understand that the One standing before her was “the resurrection and the life” in himself. She knew he had power- enough to keep Lazarus from dying- but she did not understand that it was the Lord of life who was addressing her. Jesus asks her to believe in him. She does. But you know she is believing on a certain level and is still not penetrating to the depths (11:25-27). Then we have Jesus’ encounter with Mary. She panics. Jesus goes to the tomb of Lazarus. Standing before it he declares, “ “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” ” (11:40). He then proceeds to pray loudly and publicly, thanking God that he always hears him.  It is then that Jesus called forth Lazarus in a loud voice. Why “loud”? So that everyone would hear and believe.

            So, Jesus crying was not for his “dead” friend, mourning his passing; the Jews’ observation that Jesus wept for his friend is a typical Jewish misreading of Jesus. Jesus wept at the destructive nature of sin: it had blinded his own disciples, even mankind, and had bitten into his dear friend Lazarus. And now he was going to wrestle with sin and death yet again, and raise Lazarus from the dead. The lack of faith and the deceptiveness and power of sin and death all weighed so heavily upon him.

1 When the poor leper's case I read,

My own described I feel;

Sin is a leprosy indeed,

Which none but Christ can heal.

2 What anguish did my soul endure,

Till hope and patience ceased?

The more I strove myself to cure,

The more the plague increased.

3 While thus I lay distressed, I saw

The Savior passing by;

To him, though filled with shame and awe,

I raised my mournful cry.

4 Lord, thou canst heal me if thou wilt,

Oh pity to me shew,

O cleanse my leprous soul from guilt;

My filthy heart renew.

5 He heard, and with a gracious look,

Pronounced the healing word;

"I will--be clean," and while he spoke,

I felt my health restored.

6 Come, sinners seize the present hour,

The Savior's grace to prove;

He can relieve, for he is power,

He will, for he is love.

(John Newton, 1725-1807)

---

[1] See, John Harley, “The Debate on the Active and Passive Obedience of the Christ,” Ridderbos Times (April 8^th, 2018), http://ridderbostimes.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-debate-on-active-and-passive.html, accessed 4/16/18.

[2] Ibid.

[3] John Harley, “Jesus Heals the Leper: The Significance of Matthew 8:1-4,” Ridderbos Times (March 7^th, 2018), http://ridderbostimes.blogspot.com/2018/03/jesus-heals-leper-significance-of.html, accessed 4/16/2018

[4] Ibid.

[5] The Greek word for “trouble” is tarasso. Herod and Jerusalem were “troubled” when he heard the declaration of the magi from the east (Matt.2:1-3). As a result, Herod sought to kill baby Jesus (Matt.2:13-23). The disciples saw Jesus walk on water and were “terrified”. They cried out that they had seen a ghost (Matt.14:26; Mark 6:50). Zecharias saw an angel and was “terrified”, for he was afraid (Luke 1:12). Jesus’ disciples mourned his death and were troubled, and were full of doubts about Jesus and his message (Luke 24:38). Jesus exhorts his disciples not to be troubled in their hearts because of the opposition they face from the world (John 14:1, 27). The Gentile church in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia had been troubled by certain teachers who spoken unsettling words (Acts 15:24). Antagonistic Jews stirred up trouble for the church (Acts 17:8, 13). Some had been troubling the Galatians with a distorted Gospel (Gal.1:7). There was someone in the Galatian church who had been troubling it with falsehood (Gal.5:7-12). Peter exhorts Christ’s followers not to be troubled by those who persecuted them (1 Pet.3:14).

[6] This was not the first time Jesus ignored the open emotions of the crowd during a period of mourning.

[7] In Matthew 9:30, Jesus sternly warned (embriaomai) the blind men who had been healed. Likewise, Jesus sternly warned the leper who had been healed (Mark 1:43). In Mark 14:5, we read that the disciples were scolding Mary Magdalene for pouring perfume on Jesus.